(Collection Latomus 157) Keith R. Bradley - Suetonius' Life of Nero - An Historical Commentary-Latomus (1978)

COLLECTION LATOMUS
VOLUME 157
SUETONIUS’ LIFE OF NERO

AN HISTORICAL COMMENTARY
LATOMUS
REVUE D'ETUDES LATINES
60, rue Colonel Chaltin, B. 1180 Bruxelles
La revue Latomus, fondée en 1937 par M.-A. Kugener, L. Herrmann

et M. Renard et dirigée actuellement par MM. Léon HERRMANN, Marcel
RENARD et Guy CawBiER, publie des articles, des variétés et
discussions, des notes de lecture, des comptes rendus, des notices
bibliographiques, des informations pédagogiques ayant trait à tous les
domaines de la latinité : textes, littérature, histoire, institutions,
archéologie. épigraphie, paléographie, humanisme, etc.
Les quelque 1000 pages qu'elle comporte annuellement contiennent
une riche documentation, souvent inédite et abondamment illustrée.
Montant de l'abonnement au tome XXXVII (1978) :
Abonnement ordinaire : 1250 FB.
Port et expédition en sus.

Prix des tomes publiés avant l'année en cours: 1500 FB.
Les quatre fascicules d'un tome ne sont pas vendus séparément.
C.C.P. 000-0752646-23 de la Société d'études latines de

Bruxelles.
Pour l'achat des tomes | à XXI. s'adresser à:

Johnson Reprint Corporation,
111, Fifth Avenue, New York 3, New York.
Correspondants :
ARGENTINE : M. le Prof. Fr. Novoa, Laprida, Graxpe-Bretacne: M. Je Prof. Fergus

1718, Bucnos- Aires. MiLtAR, Dept. of History. University
Bersu.: M. le Prof. Vandick Loxores DA Coilege of London, Gower Street, London
Noareca, 32. Rua Araucaria, Jardim Bota- WCIE 6BT.
nico, Rio-de- Janeiro. Travie: M'* M. L. Parapisit, 13, Via Bellotti,
Etats-Unis £t. Canaba: M. le Prof. J. R. Milano.
Workmas, Brown University, Providence Pavs-Bas : M. ie Dr. K. H. EF. Scuurter. 6,
12, Rhode Island. Sloetstraat, Nimégue.
FRANCE : M. J. Heercos. Membre de l'Acad. Suepe : M. le Prof. G. SagrtiNp, 52, Fw.
des inscr. et Belles-Lettres. Le Verger. Vasagatan, 11120. Stockholm.
Allée de ta Pavillonne, 78170 --- La-Celle- Suissr : M. A. Cattin, 14, Grand-Ruc, Cor-
St- Cloud. mondreche (Neuchate!). Suisse.
IMPRIMERIE UNIVERSA, B-9200 WeETTEREN (BELGIQUE)

COLLECTION LATOMUS
Fondée par Marcel RENARD
VOLUME 157
K. R. BRADLEY
Suetonius’ Life of Nero
An Historical Commentary
LATOMUS
REVUE D'ETUDES LATINES
60. RUE CoroNkgr. CHALTIN
BRUXELLES
1978
FOR MY PARENTS
CONTENTS
PREFACE 0. ee has 7
ABBREVIATIONS ... liseha 9
INTRODUCTION .............seeee hh 13
COMMENTARY 6. e he e hes 23
PREFACE
My purpose in the composition of this study has been to provide the

means by which the historical usefulness of Suetonius’ Life of Nero may be
assessed. I have written neither a history of Nero nor of the Neronian
period but offered a contribution which should allow the user to form an in-
dependent judgement on the historical merits of Suetonius' biography, one
of the principal sources of our knowledge of Nero. As in the case of any
commentary my work owes much to the published works of others ; indeed,
an essential part of its function is to introduce scholarly discussions
relevant to and explicative of the text. Such, however, is the weaith of per-
tinent bibliography that some selectivity has been obligatory, and in the
main I have tried to refer to what J consider sensible items of scholarship,
even though disagreements with various views and opinions may have been
felt and noted. In particular, I have avoided reference to several modern
biographies of Nero because I consider them unsuitable for detailed use, and
in order to impose a limit of expediency I have not referred, except in a few
instances, to ttems which have appeared after 1973. ! have followed the
text of M. Ihm (Teubner, 1908), but the emphasis of my study falls on the
worth of the biography as a historical source so that textual problems are
dealt with only sparingly.
A number of acknowledgements need to be made. My principal obligation
is to Mr. A. N. Sherwin-White who, as the supervisor of the thesis from
which this book resulted, has been a constant source of invaluable counsel
and inspiration. For help with and advice on sundry matters I extend thanks
to Mrs. M. T. Griffin, Professor E. Laughton, Dr. M. H. McCall, Professor
D. J. Mosley, Mr. E. J. Phillips, Dr. J. Roy, and Professor G. B. Town-
end. Deep personal debis, finally, are owed to Dr. J. F. Drinkwater and Mr.
D. J. Hancock for their friendship and encouragement throughout, and to
my parents for their support over many years of study.
Autumn, 1975. K. R. B.
ABBREVIATIONS
AE L'Année épigraphique
AFA Acta Fratrum Arvalium
Ant. Class. L'Antiquité Classique
AJA American Journal of Archaeology
AJP American Journal of Philology
Arch. Journ. Archaeological Journal
BASP Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists
BCH Bulletin de correspondance hellénique
BERGER, A. BERGER, An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law
Encyclopedic Dictionary (1953)
BICS Bulletin of the Institute for Classical Studies
BLAKE. Construction M. E. Brake, Roman Construction in lialy from Tiberius
through the Flavians (1959)
BMC Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum
BMC (e.g. lonia) Catalogue of Coins in the British Museum
Bruns, Fontes C. G. Bruns. Fontes iuris Romani antiqui! (1909)
BSA Annual of the British School at Athens
CAH Cambridge Ancient History
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
CizEK E. Cizex, L'Epoque de Néron et ses coniroverses idéologi-
ques (1972)
ag Classical Journal
CP/CPh Classical Philology
CQ Classical Quarterly
CRAI Comptes-rendus de l'Académie des inscriptions ei beiles-
lettres
CRRBM Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum
Cw Classica! World
DrGRAssi, Fasti A. Decrassi, / fasti consolari dell'impero romano (1952)
DS Ch. DAREMBERG-E. SacLio, Dictionnaire des antiquités
grecques et romaines (1877-1919)
DUJ Durham University Journal
ESAR T. Frank, ed.. An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome
(1933-40)
FRIEDLANDER L. FRIEDLANDER, Roman Life and Manners under the
Early Empire, translated by L. A. MaGnus (repr. 1968)
FURNEAUX H. Furneaux. The Annals of Tacitus? (1896)
Garnsey, Social Status P. Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privilege in the
Roman Empire (1970)
Gorpon., Album A. E. and J. S. Gorpon. Album of Dated Latin In-
scriptions (1958-65)
GR Greece and Rome
GRBS Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies
10 ABBREVIATIONS
Heinz, Das Bild K. Heinz, Das Bild Kaiser Neros bei Seneca. Tacitus,
Sueton und Cassius Dio (1948)
HENDERSON B. W. Henverson, The Life and Principate of the Em-
peror Nero (1903)
HENZEN W. HtNzEN, ed.. Acta Fratrum Arvalium Quae Supersunt
(1874)
Hour E. Hour, RE Suppl.-Bd. III (1918), s.v. 'L. Domitius
(Nero) cols. 349ff.
How arb -JACKSON A. A. HowaRD-C. N. JACKSON, Index Verborum C Sue-
tonii Tranquilli (repr. 1963)
HSCPh Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
ILS H. Dessau, [Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (1892-1916)
IRT J. M. RzvNOLDS-À. Waro-Perkins, Inscriptions of Ro-
man Tripolitania (1952)
JoLowicz, H. F. Jotowicz, B. NicHoLas, Historical Introduction to
Historical Introduction! the Study of Roman Law! (1972)
Jones, CERP? A. H. M. Jones. Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces!
(1971)
Jones, Studies A. H. M. Jones, Studies in Roman Government and Law
(1960)
JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies
JI-ES Journal of Indo-European Studies
JRS Journal of Roman Studies
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
KOESTERMANN E. KozsrERMANN, Tacitus Annalen (1963-68)
LEC Les Etudes Classiques
MAAR Memoirs of the American Academy at Rome
MaciE, RRAM D. Macie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (1950)
MEFR Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire (Ecole francaise à
Rome)
MEIGGS, Ostia R. Meicas. Roman Ostia (1960)
MOMIGLIANO A. Momiciiano. Nero in CAH X (repr. 1966), 7021T.
Momsen, DPR Th. Momsen, Droit public romain (1889-93)
MoMMSEN. Rom. Forsch. Th. Mommsen, Rónmische Forschungen (1864)
MRR T. R. S. Broucuton, The Magistrates of the Roman
Republic (repr. 1968)
Not. Scav. Notizie degli Scavi di Antichita
OCD? Oxford Classical Dictionary’ (1970)
PBSR Papers of the British School ai Rome
PCPAS Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society
Perer, ARR H. Peter, Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae (1883)
PIR Prosopographia Imperii Romani ed. 1 (1897-98), ed. 2
(1933-)
PLATNER, ASHBY. S. B. Plater, T. Asugv, A Topographical Dictionary of
Topographical Dictionary Ancient Rome (1929)
Proc. Afric. Class. Assoc. Proceedings of the African Classical Associations
Proc. Brit. Acad. Proceedings of the British Academy
RCCM Rivista di cultura classica e medievale
RE Paulys Real-encyclopddie der classischen Altertumswissen-
schaft? (1894-)
ABBREVIATIONS 11
REG Revue des études grecques

REL Revue des études latines
Rend. Linc. Rendiconti della Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e
filologiche dell’ Accademia dei Lincei
Rev. droit fr. érr. Revue historique de droit francais et étranger
Rev. de Phil. Revue de philologie
Rev. Num. Revue numismatique
Riv. di Fil. Rivista di filologia
Rosrovrzxrr, SEHRE? M. I. Rosrovrzgrr, The Social and Economic History of
the Roman Empire (revised by P. M. Fraser, 1957)
Rucciero, DE E. pe RucciERO, Dizionario epigrafico di antichità roma-
ne (1886-)
ScHANz -Hosius M. Scnawvz-C. Hosius, Geschichte der Rómischen Litera-
tur (1927-)
SCHUMANN G. ScuuMANN, Hellenistische und griechische Elemente
in der Regierung Neros (1930)
SHERWIN- WHITE, Pliny A. N. SHERWIN-WHITE, The Letters of Pliny (1966)
SIG W. DiTTENBERGER, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum!
(1915-24)
SMALL WOOD. Documents E. M. Suartwoop, Documents illustrating the Prin-
cipates of Gaius, Claudius and Nero (1967)
SQ Symbolae Osloenses
StudClas Studii Classice
SUTHERLAND. Coinage C. H. V. SurHERL AND, Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy
(repr. 1971)
Syme. RR R. Syme, The Roman Revolution (1939)
SvwE, Tacitus R. Syme. Tacitus (1958)
TAPA Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philogical
Association
TLL Thesaurus Linguae Latinae
TOWNEND in Latin Biography G. B. TowNEND, Suelonius and hís influence in T. A.
Dorey. ed., Latin Biography (1967), 79ff.
Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society
Univ. Cal. Pub. Class. Arch. University of California Publications in Classical Ar-
chaeology
WARMINGTON B. H. WaRMINGTON, Nero: Reality and Legend (1969)
Weinstock, DJ S. Weinstock, Divus Julius (1971)
WS Wiener Studien
Ycs Yale Classical Studies
s(s) Section(s) of the Nero
INTRODUCTION
C. Suetonius Tranquillus has received comparatively little attention from

English-speaking scholars in recent years. He has not been approached as a
figure representative of his own period, and his literary output has not been
subjected to full evaluation ('). As source material for the history of the
early Empire his biographies are overshadowed by the works of his great
contemporary Tacitus, but there remains all the same a need for historical
commentaries on the Caesares in order to arrive at some understanding of
their overall usefulness and reliability. The present study provides such a
commentary for the Nero, a work which, in spite of strong modern
criticism, (?) still remains unavoidable and indispensable for knowledge of
the Neronian period.
(1) In English no monograph on Suetonius exists and the last commentaries on in-
dividual lives date from 1927 (Butter and Canv's Julius and BRAiTHEWAITE'S Vespasian).
The main problems treated in recent times have been subsidiary to Tacitean scholarship.
principally matters of Quellenforschung, together with discussions of Suetonius’ career since
the publication in 1952 of the African cursus inscription (for which see further, 20 n.39).
One exception is the brief but valuable assessment of Suetonius by TowNEND in Latin
Biography (1967). More attention has been given to the biographer by continental scholars.
F. Detta Corte, Suetonio Eques Romanus? (1967), maintains that Suetonius as a member
of the equestrian order wrote for an equestrian audience. But this seems too restrictive an
approach. The Nero does not present an overall! view of Nero different from that of the
senatorial historians Tacitus and Dio, even though the focus of attention is not the same. Cf.
Heinz, Das Bild, 7, "Sueton folgie wie sein Zeitgenosse der aristokratisch-senatorischen
Ueberlicferung". W. SrEIDLE, Sueton und die antike Blographie (1951), emphasises Sue-
tonius' assessments of his subjects in predominantly 'Roman' terms, perhaps not so surpris-
ing. In reaction against these two authors E. PAgATORE, Claude et Néron chez Suétone in
RCCM 1 (1959), 3261f, sensibly calls for a more cautious and balanced evaluation of
Suetonius’ literary achievement. Other recent literary studies include G. D'Anna, Le idee
letierarie di Suetonio (1968), B. Moucuova, Studien zur Kaiserblographlen Sueton (1968).
F. Leo, Die Griechisch-Rómische Biographie (1901), still remains the fundamental literary
study of Suetonius. A. Macé, Essai sur Suétone (1900), is still also of interest though now
erroneous on details of Suetonius’ career.
(2) Syme, Tacitus, 463 n.5; 781f. cf. RR, 324, for a more generous opinion of
Suetonius, and note also the comments of R. W. SourHERN, Trans. Roy. Hist Soc.) 20
(1970), 183f.
14 INTRODUCTION
The first essential is to establish some idea of Suetonius’ attitude towards

and treatment of Nero. It is a commonplace, nevertheless valid, to remark
that biography is not history. Thus, at all times, what has been termed " the
law of biographical relevance" (?) precludes a comprehensive and fully
historical analysis of any reign by Suetonius. In the Nero, for instance,
there is no mention of Cn. Domitius Corbulo (9). Yet this need not
minimise the importance of statements found in the biography which, for
instance, contains the only continuous account of Nero's ancestry and
childhood and the best detailed account of his loss of power and fall in
A.D. 68. The object then, is to recognise the bias of the presentation and to
work out the soundness of each individual item as far as possible. One view
holds that Suetonius tends to have no opinion, favourable or hostile,
towards his biographical subjects ; rather, he presents a miscellany of
material from which the reader may form his own judgement (5). It is true
that statements of personal opinion appear infrequently in Suetonius’
writings (°), and yet the common method of presentation, whereby the acta
of any princeps might be divided into commendable and non-commendable
categories and the one allowed to predominate over the other does
nonetheless create the impression that Suetonius’ own view coincides with
the final prevailing catalogue. [n fact, the classification into good and bad
has been called “‘a kind of principle of chiaroscuro” (7) and it will be
assumed here that in the Nero, Suetonius’ aim despite the nulla reprehensio
of deeds preceding s. 19.3, is in essence to depict Nero as a man of probra ac
scelera (*). In other words, Suetonius has a decided opinion on the charac-
ter of Nero and the bulk of the biography is designed to illustrate his /m-
manitas naturae (s.7.1), in part hereditary CÓ) — hence the long in-
(3) TowurND. Latin Biography. 84; cf. Syme. Tacitus. 502, "Suetonius correcily
estimated the taste and market of the times. Readers were drawn to the personal items that
formal history. disdained
(4) Syme. Tacitus, 781f.
(5) TowwrND. Latin Biography, 92f.
(6) The difficulty of attempting to define Suetonius’ views and ideas is implicit, for exam-
ple. in SourHERN, art. cir., 1731.
(7) P. A. Brunt. Historia 10 (1961), 221. PaRATORE. arr. cit.. 341, concludes that
Suetonius had no political. religious, or philosophical beliefs of his own. But what an author
chooses 10 write about and how he writes are surely some indication of his opinions no mat-
ter how implicit they might be. Cf. F. R. D. Goopyvear, The Annals of Tacitus 1 (1972). 46.
(8) See further. 119; 153IF.
(9) S.1.2 pluris e familia cognosci referre arbitror, quo facilius appareat ita degenerasse a
suorum uirtutibus Nero, ut tamen uitia cuiusque quasi tradita et ingenita retulerit. For
natura, cf. ss.26.1 ; 43.1.
INTRODUCTION 15
troduction on the Domitii Ahenobarbi — in part the result of Nero's in-

felicitas (s.6.2) (19). Yet it is not quite true to maintain that Suetonius
presents his subject ‘‘as a hopelessly corrupt case from birth" (!!) ; the im-
portance of the commendable acta cannot be underestimated in spite of the
ancestral inheritance and the workings of fate. Nor is the view that
Suetonius presents a gradual revelation of character totally valid either. The
most recent exponent of this theory, J.-M. Croisille ('?), ignores the absence
of chronology in Suetonius’ material in ss.10.1 — 39.3, and makes in-
sufficient allowance for the crucial diuisio at s.19.3 : the words haec partim
nulla reprehensione, partim etiam non mediocri laude digna in unum contuli
may be grudging on Suetonius' part, but they reflect approval nonetheless.
It seems more realistic to assume that Suetonius understood Nero's charac-
ter to be fundamentally evil, but that this did not prevent the emperor from
undertaking praiseworthy actions at various points throughout his life.
There is then, a certain authentic flexibility. However, the evil predominates
and although there may be a progression from probra to scelera, (3) the
forcefulness of s.19.3 (reiterated at the beginning of s.26.1) excludes the
possibility of a slow evolution of personality in the literary treatment. An
important distinction must be made between the belief in a slow revelation
of character in the historical sense, to which Suetonius presumably adhered
to judge from s.26.1, and the presentation of this in the biography.
Croisille's argument is part of an attempt to prove Suetonius an ac-
complished literary artist, gifted with psychological insight, but this is
rather an extreme hypothesis and breeds the suspicion that the search for
subtlety in Suetonius can in itself become over-subtle ('*). Suetonius is sim-
(10) Cf. below, 46; 235f; 248.

(1D J. F. G. Hino, Historia 20 (1971), 490.
(12) L'Art de la composition chez Suétone in Annali deli’ Instituto Italiano per gli Studi
Storici (1969/70), 731IT. following SrEiDiE, op. cir. 73ff.
(13) CnmoisitLE, art. cit., 83; cf. below, 119.
(14) [t is not within the scope of this work to undertake a full literary exegesis of the
Nero. Comment is necessary, however, to make clear the fact that the biography is partial
and tendentious. Cf. Heinz, Das Bild, 118€ Views such as those of Croisilie hinge on a
major difficulty which is never defined, namely, the extent to which Suetonius is concerned
with an historical figure, or else a literary figure, almost a fictional character. In addition,
some of Croisille's arguments lack cogency. Since Suetonius, for instance, in describing the
catastrophe of Nero is occupied with the demise of an individual, it is difficult to see how
this can become "la dégradation finale de l'Empire" (CRotsiLLE, art. cit. 77). More im-
portanily, Croisille attempts to circumvent the importance of the commendable acia by in-
sisting on a negative interpretation of the ostentatio at ss.9.] and 10.1, on the amount of at-
16 INTRODUCTION
ply concerned with the demonstration of character illustrated from selective

events in the subject's life (5). There is no moralising, no didactic element.
The same conclusion is reached from observing that Suetonius does not
penetrate behind the events he records to determine their political origins.
His statements on causation are invariably governed by his estimate of the
personality of the subject ; hence, in the Nero trivial reasons are often given
for important events. The final portrait is built up by parading exempla of
qualities and defects, the exempla being a blend of sober items and in-
substantial anecdotes. The generalisations of the Neronian tradition
inherited by Suetonius thus become controlled by the degree of the validity
of the exempla.
Any work of history (in the broadest sense) will be affected or coloured
by developments or tastes prevalent at the time of writing. Hadrianic
allusions, for example, have been detected in Tacitus’ Annales (5), and by a
natural corollary the same could be true for Suetonius' Lives. In particular,
Suetonius' use of certain vocabulary items which appear also as Hadrianic
tention devoted to spectacula, and the impersonalised narration of certain of the com-
mendable needs. The latter point may carry some weight, though in terms of length the per-
sonalised presentation of other commended sections is more impressive still, and the argu-
ment does not allow for the emperor's working through the senate ; see 102 for a relevant
example. The argument from speciacula is unimportant if it is recalled that Suetonius’ own
interest in that subject can be inferred from his composition of a treatise entitled Ludicra
Historia. To judge from the extant corpus Suetonius was certainly no moralist and it cannot
be imagined that he was a forerunner of Tertullian in attitude here. (For Suetonius and Ter-
tullian cf. TERT. De Spect. ed. E. Castorina [1961], Ixxxiii). Ostentatio is not necessarily
perjorative in tone either. The demonstration of pietas at the beginning of a reign was not
unusual; see 66f; and the positive virtues of clementia, liberalitas, and comitas resulted
from Nero's effort ut certiorem adhuc. indolem ostenderet (s.10.1). The belief that the
biography is built around the concept of Nero the " prince-acteur" (CRorsiLLE, art. cit., 82)
ignores the prosaic nature of many portions of the work. [t is beuer to allow that Suetonius
deals with factual material which may be distorted or exaggerated to coincide with the belief
in (mmanítas naturae (contra H. AitLoup in the Budé edition of Suetonius, 1 [1931].
xxxiii) : this has to be pointed out frequently, but it is of minimal value, perhaps even un-
necessary 10 go further.
(15) [1 is not correct to believe, as AILLOUD, op. cir., xxxii, that Suetonius’ aim was to
assemble the greatest number possible of precise pieces of information on each biographical
subject. This notion evades the problem of the length of individual lives in relationship to
each other, especially the Flavian lives for which there should have been a wealth of first-
hand information available to Suetonius. Yet the Domit.. for instance, is considerably shor-
ter than the Nero ; cf. below 19. For the process of selectivity reference need only be made to
the exemplary technique used by Suetonius (see 19 n.36). In the Nero material which ap-
pears in other literary sources could have been used to demonstrate crudelltas or luxuria ; its
absence is not explicable on the grounds that Suetonius was unaware of it.
(16) Syme, Tacirus. 498 ; 5171.
INTRODUCTION 17
coin-legends has been interpreted to support a larger hypothesis that

Suetonius and Hadrian felt a mutual, deep antipathy ('’). The idea of
deliberate allusiveness, however, cannot be accepted here (!*) and normally
it will be assumed that the Nero is more influenced by the Julio-Claudian
tradition in existence in Suetonius' own day than by any contemporary fac-
tors.
While the genres of biography and history require different points of

focus, many items in the Nero are common in substance to the respective
versions of Tacitus and Dio, thus raising the difficult — and ultimately in-
soluble — problem of Suetonius’ sources (!?). No source is ever mentioned
by name in the Nero, in strong contrast to preceding lives where a plethora
of authors may be cited (9). This has been taken as a sign of a later date of
composition for the post-Augustus lives than for the /ufius and the
Augustus itself (?!), but it makes the question of identification of sources
even more intractable. [t can be stated with certainty that Suetonius knew
the histories of the elder Pliny ; this he makes plain enough (??). Further,
from comparison of certain statements common to Suetonius and Tacitus
where the latter mentions authorities, Suetonius can be shown to have been
familiar with Fabius Rusticus (?). Again, since Cluvius Rufus is mentioned
expressly in the Nero (not as a source ; s.21.2) it is reasonable to suppose
that Suetonius was also aware of his historical writings. These few in-
dications, however, leave no room to suggest that in the composition of the
Nero Suetonius relied on one principal authority. Indeed, in certain sections
of the work where an introductory generalisation is randomly illustrated (?*)
(17) T. F. Carney, How Suetonius’ "Lives" Reflect on Hadrian in Proc. Afric. Class.
Assoc. 11 (1968), 7ff. Cf. also for the possibility of allusiveness TowwNEND, Latin Biography.
90. and more fully in CQ n.s. 9 (1959), 28517. Townend, however, sees no criticism of
Hadrian.
(18) For the full argument see /mperial Virtues in Suetonius’ Caesares in JI-ES 4 (1976).
2451T.
(19) Cf. F. Mittar, A Study of Cassius Dio (1964), viii.
(20) E.g.. Aug. 2.3; 3.2: 7.1; 7.2, etc. See for the most recent survey of sources for
writers on the Julio-Claudian period J. J. Witkes, The Julio-Claudian Historians in CW 65
(1972). 1771f.
(21) TowNEND, Latin Biography, 88.
(22) Calig. 8.1-3. For the influence of Pliny in the Nero see 122; 155 , 214 ; 272.
(23) See 163f.
(24) E.g ss. 10; 11; 16.2, etc. See 77f for the possible influence of Seneca.
18 INTRODUCTION
the impression is strong that the exempla were culled independently from a
variety of sources. All too frequently scholars who follow a ‘single author’
theory neglect the point that there were authors other than Pliny, Cluvius
Rufus, and Fabius Rusticus to draw on, of whom little or nothing is now
known (5). Moreover, certain anecdotes and verses of the type found at
s.39.2 may never have been written down at all before Suetonius but tran-
smitted orally, while the section on Nero's physical appearance may have
been influenced by Suetonius’ own inspection of statues (9). Traces of
epigraphic sources, however, are sparse and dubious in the Nero (?").
Presumably Suetonius' Palatine offices allowed for the collection of some
new material, and this may be illustrated in the Nero from the account of
the original versions of Nero's poetry (78). Finally it is likely that Suetonius
was affected to some extent by the popular exitus literature of the day (7°).
In the last analysis, however, each item has to be treated on its own merits
and assessed accordingly without minimising the importance of its context
or the possibility of fresh composition.
(25) Note the important remarks of Jos. BJ 20.154, and Tacitus’ reference, Amn. 14.2,
to ceteri auctores. PARATORE, art. cit, 332. speaks of a tradition favourable to Nero in
Suetonius’ list of commendable acia. But this is to oversimplify. Some of the items preceding
$.19.3 do appear in the other literary sources so what should be stressed again here is the
fact of Suetonius’ selection of what he considered to be commendable without following
tradition haphazardly.
(26) See 281.
(27) W. Dennison, The Epigraphic Sources of Suetonius in AJA 2 (1896), 26ff. Cf. N.
NELSON, An Epigraphic Commentary on Suetonius! Life of Nero (Diss. 1933), which has
been found of little value; CJ 37 (1941-42), 281ff.
(28) See 287f.
(29) R. M. OzcitviE-I. A. RicHMoND, Tacitus ; Agricola (1967), 13 n.5, referring to
$5.47(T. which should rather be ss.37ff. Cf. R. MacMULLEN, Enemies of the Roman Order
(1966). 71. Note especially the works of Titinius Capito and C. Fannius, respectively Exitus
Inlustrium Virorum and Exitus Occisorum aut Relegatorum a Nerone , Prin. Epp. 5.5.3;
8.12.4; cf. SukgRwiN-WuirE, ad foc. For the possibility that Suetonius had read
PLutarcy’'s Lives of the Caesars see C. P. Jones, Plutarch and Rome (1971). 62. The
origins of the material on the Domiti Ahenobarbi cannot be determined clearly. Family
hisiories such as the De Familiis Troianis of M. Terentius Varro or the De Familiis Romanis
of M. Valerius Messalla Rufus (Peter. HRR 1] 9 ; 65) may have been used by Suetonius.
Perhaps a variety of sources is best understood. Individual family records were available; cf.
Livy 8.40.8 ; Cic. Brus. 16 | Pis. NH 35.7 ; as also items such as the De Vita Rebusque
Inlustrium Virorum of C. lulius Hyginus (Peter, ARR II 72). T. Pomponius Atticus is
known also to have written histories of individual families ; Corn. Nep. Att. 18.3-4 ; but
whether for the Ahenobarbi is unknown. Suetonius was at least familiar with some of Nepos"
work (cf. Tib. 7.2) so that the principle of investigation is beyond doubt. It is highly unlikely
that Suetonius conducted original research for the ancestral origins of Nero ; cf. s.1.2. ac-
cepimus. which implies reliance on written. sources.
INTRODUCTION 19
Ili
It was observed above that the arrangement of a Suetonian biography

often consists of a division of the commendable and non-commendable
acta of the subject's reign. This in turn is superimposed on a rough
chronological framework in which the main elements are topics such as the
ancestry of the subject, his childhood and education, the events leading to
his death and so on (9). In all this the Nero is typical, though a problem
exists concerning the overall quality of the life in relationship to earlier and
seemingly more fully documented lives (!). If standards of presentation we-
re consistent and the biographies controlled in length by the length of either
individual reigns or the life-span of the subjects, the biographies would be
totally different from their existing sizes. Since this is obviously not so it
must follow, on the view that the Julius and Augustus were composed before
the succeeding lives, that in the second series standards of accuracy and
commitment declined (??). An alternative view, that the /ulius and Augustus
followed the shorter lives does not have a strong case to recommend it (7),
and the turning point may have come with Suetonius' dismissal from his
position as ab epistulis 0*). Even so, this did not prevent Suetonius from
producing in the Nero what is generally recognised as his finest piece of
sustained composition (??).
The difficulties of sources and length aside, the Nero does not present
other problems arising from its composition. The rubrics are all paralleled
elsewhere, the use of diuisiones is standard, and the narrative sections (?9)
are not unusual in comparison with other lives. Thus, the commentary
which follows is based on the arrangement of the biography here outlined :
ss.1-5: ancestry
ss.6-7 : birth and. childhood
(30) Townenn, Latin Biography, 82[. Cf. also on composition ín partes SHERWIN-
Waite, Pliny, 517.
(31) Cf. above 16 1.15.
(32) TowNEND, Latin Biography, 90; above, 17.
(33) G. W. Bowersock, Suetonius and Trajan in Hommages à Marcel Renard. Collection
Latomus 101 (1969), 1 1191f ; K. R. BRapLEv. The Composition of Suetonius’ "Caesares"
Again in JI-ES 1 (1973), 257ff.
(34) HA Hadr. 11.3.
(35) Ss. 40-50 ; see below, 243.
(36) By the term ‘narrative sections’ is meant those passages, such as the account of
Agrippina's murder, which are continuous pieces of writing in contrast to the ‘exemplary’
style, a list of corroborative exempla to support an introductory generalisation.
20 INTRODUCTION
s.8 : accession and immediate sequel

$s.9-19.2 : commendable acta
s.19.3: diuisio
$s.20-39 . non-commendable acta
ss.40-50 : demise and death
85.51-57 : miscellaneous
The longest subdivision is clearly that on the non-commendable acta and

this will be broken down further in the commentary according to topics. In
addition, the major divisions are prefaced as required with detailed com-
ments on the manner of presentation of the subject matter at hand.
IV
The career of Suetonius is not an important subject; the question of

his value and reliability as a historian matters a good deal more (??).
Despite the sanity of Crook's observation much discussion of Suetonius’
career has taken place in the last twenty years or so since the publication in
1952 of an inscription from Hippo Regius containing part of Suetonius'
cursus C*). Access to the discussion is not difficult, and there is little to add
so that a full rehearsal of the details of Suetonius’ career is superfluous
here (9). Comment is necessary only in relation to the date of publication
of the Nero.
The Julius (at least) was dedicated to C. Septicius Clarus while
praetorian prefect (4°) ; that allows a terminus non ante of A.D. 119 (*'). It
is not certain, however, that all of the lives were published simultaneously ;
the absence of documentary information and a falling off in standards of
literary presentation in the post-Augustus biographies are signs that the
(37) J. CRoo&. Suetonius "Ab Epistulis" in PCPAS 4 (1956/57), 181. 20.

(38) H.-G. Pri. AUM. E. Manrc. Nouvelle inscription sur la carriére de Suétone in CRAI
(1952), 76ff.
(39) In addition to the items in the two notes above see especially F. Grosso. L'epigrafe
di Ippona e ia vita di Suetonio con i fasti dei pontifeci di Volcano a Ostia in Rend. Linc." 14
(1959), 2631T ; H.-G. Pri.AUM. Les carriéres procuratoriennes équestres sous le haut-empire
romain (1966), no. 96; SHerwin-Wuite. Pliny, 127f ; MriGGS, Ostia, 515ff; Syme.
Tacitus, 77811; G. B. TowNeNp. The Hippo Inscription and the Career of Suetonius in
Historia 10 (1961), 99f.
(40) Joann. Lvp. De Mag. 2.6.
(41) RE s.v. praefectus praetorio! cols. 2423f. The date of Septicius’ replacement is not
known.
INTRODUCTION 21
Iulius and Augustus should be detached from the remaining lives (*?). In all
likelihood, therefore, the Caesares were published in serial form, and in
chronological order (9). A hint in the Titus suggests that Suetonius was at
work on that life c. 130 (**) so that the Nero should belong in all probability
to the late [20's, that is, after Suetonius’ dismissal from the government
service by Hadrian (5). The composition of historical works in retirement
from a public career was not new.
(42) Above, 17.

(43) See JI-ES 1 (1973), 2571f.
(44) Syme. Tacitus. 780. But it is not essential to believe that the lives Caesar-Nero ap-
peared together c. A.D. 119.
(45) Although HA Hadr. 11.3 does not have to be tied to the chronological context of
Hadrian's visit to Britain (Crook, art. cit., 200, c A.D. 122 sull seems the best dale for
Suetonius’ dismissal from his post ab epistulis.
COMMENTARY
Sections 1-5: The Ancestry of Nero
Suetonius opens the biography with an account of Nero's ancestors, the

Domitii Ahenobarbi. This conforms to standard practice in the imperial
biographies. The first five sections are intended to demonstrate ancestral
defects in personality inherited by Nero himself. Cf. above, 14, below, 29.
The overall portrait of Nero is to be condemnatory ; hence the origins
of the condemnation must be sought. This means that strict historical ac-
curacy becomes of only secondary importance to Suetonius. He does not
aim to provide a full account of the career of each individual Ahenobarbus,
nor is he really interested in the Ahenobarbi as such ; instead he records
only the most famous, or infamous episodes in the family history, in anec-
dotal form, in order to provide a starting point for the principal subject.
What must be recognised, therefore, is the highly subjective treatment of the
Ahenobarbi by Suetonius, and perhaps also the reflection in that treatment
of the history of the popular opinion of the family.
The emphasis on Nero's inherited ui/tía stil! produces an effect upon
modern scholarship ; cf. H. F. Pelham, Essays (1911), 43 ; “That he (sc.
Nero) may have inherited from his paternal ancestors, the Domitii, a vein of
ferocity is possible ; but he lacked the stern courage and resolution charac-
teristic of them".
On the Domitii Ahenobarbi in general see W. Drumann, P. Groebe, Ge-
schichte Roms? (1906), III 1ff ; RE s.v. 'Domitius' cols. 1313ff ; R. Syme,
Domitius Corbulo in JRS 60 (1970), 27ff; 33f (briefly).
1.1 Ex gente Domitia duae familiae claruerunt

The gens Domitia had a distinguished record in Republican history, par-
ticularly in the mid- and late Republic. Of the two branches the Ahenobarbi
were more prominent than the Calvini. It is impossible, however, to
produce precise evidence of its history much before its members first begin
to appear in the consular records. The first member of the gens to attain
the consulship held office in 332 B.C. ; MRR I 141. His son, consul in
283 B.C., appears in the Fasti Capitolini as Cn. Domitius Cn. f. Cn. n.
24 SUETONIUS' LIFE OF NERO
Calvinus Maximus. Thus the father of the consul of 332 B.C. is the earliest
member of the gens who is attested with certainty and the Domitii are
"historical" from perhaps the beginning of the fourth century B.C. Cf. RE
s.v. Domitius col. 1313 (Münzer). For the noble status of the Ahenobarbi,
which followed tenure of the consulship see M. Gelzer, The Roman Nobility
(1969 English trans.), 27ff; 52f.
STEMMA
Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, cos. 192 B.C.
|
Cn. Domitius Ahenbbarbus, cos, 96 B.C. L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, cos. 94 B.C.
L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, cos. 54 B.C.
L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, cos. A.D. 16.

[- | |
Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, cos. A.D. 32. Domitia Domitia Lepida
L. Domitius Ahenobarbus - NERO
Note: This stemma is not intended to be complete, but simply to serve as a

guide to the persons commented upon in ss.1-5.
Caluinorum
Little is known of the consul of 332 B.C. other than the fact of his con-
sulship; MRR II 560. The career of his son, Cn. Domitius Calvinus
Maximus, cos. 283 B.C., is more fully established : after his consulship he
became dictator and was the first plebeian to hold the censorship ; Liv. Per.
13 ; MRR II 560 ; cf. Fast. Capit. for 280 B.C. For roughly two hundred
years, however, nothing more is heard of the Calvini until the appearance of
M. Domitius Calvinus, praet. 80 B.C., who was killed the following year
while proconsul of Hispania Citerior; MRR II 79, 84. His son, cos.
53 B.C. and 40 B.C., played a prominent role in the civil wars of the late
Republic: he commanded the centre of Caesar's forces at Pharsalus, was
AN HISTORICAL COMMENTARY 25
defeated at sea while conveying troops to Philippi, but celebrated a triumph

for successes gained in Spain where he served as proconsul for Octavian ;
MRR Il 227, 378, 277, 365, 388. Although other Calvini are attested in
the late Republic the line appears to come to an effective end with the con-
sul of $3 B.C. No male members of the familia are attested under the Prin-
cipate. Cf. PIR? D 170, 138 (unidentifiable); PJR' D 150.
A« h> enobarborum
Syme, 4c, argues from the name for an Illyrian root for the family.
A<h> enobarbi auctorem originis itemque cognominis habent L. Domitium,

cui rure quondam reuertenti iuuenes gemini augustiore forma ex occursu im-
perasse traduntur, nuntiaret senatui ac populo uictoriam, de qua incertum
adhuc erat
Suetonius alludes to the alleged appearance in Rome of the Dioscuri after
the battle of Lake Regillus early in the fifth century B.C., for which cf. Liv.
2. 19-20 ; Dion. Hal. 6.3ff; Plut. Aem. Lepid. 25. The battle can be ac-
cepted as historical, but the assistance of supernatural forces hardly calls for
serious comment; cf. CAH VII 487ff; R. M. Ogilvie, 4 Commentary on
Livy 1-5 (1965), 286. Suetonius' version here, however, is not strictly con-
sistent with the other sources. According to Dionysius the Dioscuri actually
participated in the battle, then appeared in Rome the same day to announce
the victory. Plutarch has the appearance of the gods in Rome after the battle
only, while Livy has nothing of the gods’ appearance during the battle or
subsequently at Rome ; in this version the dictator Postumius vowed a tem-
ple to Castor, the dedication of which is later recorded (Liv. 2.42.5). in
Suetonius, the outcome of the battle is unknown at the time of the ap-
pearance of the gods, and L. Domitius is returning from some location out-
side the city at that time. Only Plutarch among the other sources connects
an Ahenobarbus with the Dioscuri, though this might have been expected
also in the more comprehensive version of Dionysius. But both Plutarch
and Dionysius place the appearance of the gods in the Forum. On two
points, therefore, Suetonius diverges from the other accounts : the time of
the gods' appearance in relation to the battle and its location.
These discrepancies illustrate the lack of a single, clear tradition concern-
ing Regillus and the assumption of the cognomen Ahenobarbus. That the
story of the origin of the cognomen was given a boost in the late ftrst cen-
tury B.C. seems indicated by the appearance of the head of L. Domitius on
coins issued by Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, cos. 32 B.C. ; CRRBM II 487f.
Münzer, RE s.v. 'Domitius' col. 1314, points out the concern of the dynasts
at this period to provide themselves with mythological roots. For parallel
traditions of descent from the gods see Weinstock, DJ, 4f.
auctorem originis
See below, 28.
ut e nigro rutilum aerique adsimilem capillum redderent

Suetonius is concerned with the colour rather than texture of hair;
contra, Syme, Lc
quod insigne mansit

Cf. s.S1 subflauo capillo.
1.2 functi autem consulatibus septem

From 192 B.C. the Ahenobarbi are known to have held nine consulships
over eight succeeding generations ; see MRR for the years 192, 162, 122,
96, 94, 54, 32 B.C. ; PIR? D 128 for 16 B.C. ; PIR? D 127 for A.D. 32.
This total obviously conflicts with Suetonius' assertion here. Cf. Vell. Pat.
2.10.2, septem ante hunc nobilissimae simplicitatis iuuenem, Cn. Domitium,
fuere, singuli omnes parentibus geniti, sed omnes ad consulatum sacer-
dotiaque, ad triumphi autem paene omnes peruenerunt insignia. This text is
of little help ; before the consul of 32 A.D., to whom Velleius refers, there
were eight consuls, two of whom were brothers, so it is not quite correct to
believe that Velleius is fully accurate here, as Münzer, RE s.v. 'Domitius'
col. 1314.
Since the consulships in the present text are coupled with the Republican
honours of the censorship and the triumph it may be that Suetonius has
counted only the number of offices held by the Ahenobarbi before the
establishment of the Principate ; thus Mommsen, Róm. Forsch. 1 73 n.5,
omitting the consulship of 32 A.D. from his total of eight. Mommsen
removed from consideration the consulships of 32 B.C. and 16 B.C. on the
grounds that they were held under Augustus (not strictly true) and supposed
Suetonius to have ended the Republican catalogue either in 49 B.C. or
44 B.C. On this reasoning, however, a total of only six consulships
remains. More satisfactory than relying, as Mommsen, on possible scribal
errors or defective Suetonian sources is to discard the consulships held un-
der the Principate, those of 16 B.C. and 32 A.D., and to regard the figure
in Suetonius as correct for the number of offices held before 31 B.C.
triumpho censuraque duplici

There is evidence for only one triumph celebrated by an Ahenobarbus : in
120 B.C. the consul of 122 B.C. triumphed for his successes against the
Arverni in Gaul ; below, 30f. The incompleteness of the Acta Triumphorum
is the most likely cause of ignorance about the second triumph ; Mommsen,
Róm. Forsch. | 73 n.5. The most reasonable contender for the honour
should be the consul of 192 B.C., engaged in Cisalpine Gaul in the years
192/1 B.C., Liv. 35.22.3-4 ; 40.2.4 ; 36.37.6, a time for which there are
no triumphal records. The consul of 32 B.C. issued coins bearing the legend
IMP to commemorate a naval victory, but the Acta are complete here. Cf.
s.4 for ornamenta triumphalia, not equal to a full triumph.
In 115 B.C. the consul of 122 B.C. held the censorship with L. Caecilius
Metellus as colleague ; MRR I 531f. Thirty two members of the senate were
expelled and certain measures enacted against entertainers ; Liv. Per. 62. In
92 B.C. the censorship was held by the consul of 96 B.C., his colleague
being L. Licinius Crassus, cos. 95 B.C. ; MRR II 17. It was memorable
chiefly for the personal animosities displayed towards each other by the
censors themselves. The only apparent administrative action was the issuing
of an edict against Latin rhetors, for the text of which see Suet. De Rhet.
1.1 ; Aut. Gell. NA 15.11.2. They abdicated before completing the lustrum;
cf. below, 32.
inter patricios adlecti

Mommsen, Rórm. Forsch. | 73f, showed that the Ahenobarbi remained of
plebeian status until the generation of the consul of 54 B.C. and was very
probably correct to maintain that the Ahenobarbi benefitted from the /ex
Saenia of 30 B.C. by which, in his work of reconstruction, Augustus in-
creased the number of patrician families ; cf. T. P. Wiseman, New Men in
the Roman Senate (1971), 172. The difficult relations between the consul
of 54 B.C. and Caesar seem to exclude the possibility of promotion under
the dictator ; cf. below, 40.
ac ne praenomina quidem ulla praeterquam Gnaei et Luci usurparunt

Cf. Suet. Aug. 17.2 for a T. Domitius, an error for the consul of 32 B.C.
eaque ipsa notabili uarietate, modo continuantes unum quodque per trinas
personas, modo alternantes per singulas. nam primum secundumque ac ter-
tium A<h> enobarborum Lucios, sequentis rursus tres ex ordine Gnaeos ac-
cepimus, reliquos non nisi uicissim tum Lucios tum Gnaeos
The first Ahenobarbus to appear in the consular fasti, the consul of

192 B.C., is cited thus: Cn. L. f. L. n. His own son and grandson have the
same praenomen as himself, thus making a run of three Gnaeii. If this text
is taken literally it would be reasonable to imagine that these three are the
sequentis ... Gnaeos and that an unrecorded Lucius, the great grandfather of
the consul of 192 B.C., would correspond to Suetonius' L. Domitius, auctor
originis itemque cognominis in s.1.1. Münzer, RE s.v. ‘Domitius’ col. 1313f,
apparently assuming that Suetonius found such a genealogy recorded, ac-
cepts this as fact. But it should be clear that this can hardly be so if the first
L. Domitius is to be connected in some way with Regillus, the date of which
falls in the early fifth century B.C. ; cf. CAH £c. (Last); Ogilvie, Lc. ;
above, 25. From this time until 192 B.C. there is an interval of over three
hundred years which could not possibly be covered by three Lucii alone.
Either more unknown Ahenobarbi must be inserted into this time span or
else any association between the first L. Domitius and Regillus must be
abandoned as fabrication. In the latter case the history of the Ahenobarbi
cannot be pursued earlier than approximately the second quarter of the third
century B.C. But there is no reason why the family history should not be
pushed back further even if this cannot be proved. The Calvini can be tra-
ced back with certainty to the early fourth century B.C. (above, 24) and the
Ahenobarbi may well have forebears also at this early date. Con-
sequently it seems wrong to conclude with certainty, as Münzer in his
stemma of the Ahenobarbi, RE s.v. "Domitius col. 1315, that the great
grandfather of the consul of 192 B.C. was a Lucius. This is possible of
course, but if so he was not the Lucius of s.1.1. For the political con-
nections of the consuls of 192 B.C. and 162 B.C. with the Scipios see H.
H. Scullard, Roman Politics? (1973), 131, 208, 227.
Suetonius is definitely wrong on the alternation of the praenomina after
the three-three sequence, for the consul of 122 B.C. gave his praenomen to
his elder son, the consul of 96 B.C., thus leaving four consecutive Gnaei
before the alternation becomes visible. See the stemma above.
accepimus
This term seems to make it clear that Suetonius did not conduct his own
investigation into the history of the Ahenobarbi but relied instead on some
genealogical compendium of the type written by Pomponius Atticus (above,
18 n.29). Hence errors in the family history may have been transmitted rat-
her than created by Suetonius.
pluris e familia cognosci referre arbitror, quo facilius appareat ita degene-
rasse a suorum uirtutibus Nero, ut tamen uitia cuiusque quasi tradita et in-
genita ret t2» ulerit
This passage is of importance for establishing Suetonius' view of Nero's
personality ; see above, 14. It would be unwise and overly artificial to
argue that the bulk of the biography takes up every single characteristic
described in ss.1-5. But the main thrust is clear enough. The following
correspondences might be noted: (i) s.2.1 offensior, quod... = petulantia;
cf. s.26.1; (ii) s.2.1 quasi inter sollemnia triumphi... = adrogantia ; cf.
$.55 ; (iil) s.2.3 neque satis constans... ita expauit ; cf. the portrayal of
Nero in the exitus sections ; (iv) s.4 aurigandi arte ; cf. s.22.2 ; (v) s.4
arrogans, profusus, immitis ; cf. (ii) and ss.26.1 ; 36.1ff.
2.1 atauus eius Cn. Domitius

The consul of 96 B.C. Before holding the tribunate of the p/ebs he had
been involved in the foundation of a colony at Narbo Martius in 118 B.C.
(below, 31) and had occupied the post of monetalis c.108/7 B.C. : MRR IM
439 . 644; RE s.v. ‘Domitius’ cols. 1324ff (Münzer).
in tribunatu pontificibus offensior, quod alium quam se in patris sui locum

cooptassent
Domitius held the tribunate in 104 B.C. ; MRR I 559; 562 n.5. His
anger was directed specifically against M. Aemilius Scaurus, cos. 115 B.C.,
and princeps senatus, who was responsible directly for barring Domitius
from the pontificate ; Ascon. 21 Clark. In retaliation Domitius brought a
charge against Scaurus that he had neglected certain priestly duties ; Ascon.
l.c. ; cf. Cic. Pro Reg. Deiot. 31 ; Val. Max. 6.5.5 ; Dio 27. fr. 92. Scaurus
was acquitted at his trial, though not overwhelmingly. For the anti-Metellan
implications of this accusation by Domitius, as in the trial of M. lunius
Silanus, cos. 109 B.C., which Domitius also instigated, see E. Gruen,
Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts (1968), 173f.
It is likely that the contested priesthood was the pontificate, as Suetonius’
text implies, even though Asconius, /.c., refers to the augurum collegium;
the description of the religious functions cited in the charge by Asconius
suits the pontificate better, crimini dabat sacra publica populi Romani deum
Penatium quae Lauini fierent opera eius minus recte casteque fieri ; R. M.
Geer, CPh 24 (1929), 2921ff ; cf. MRR II 562 n. 7. Succession to the pon-
tificate was not hereditary although it was not uncommon for sons to follow
their fathers in the appointment. Geer, art. cit., points out that Domitius"
attitude becomes comprehensible if he was deprived of an honour which
father and grandfather before him had held; Liv. 42.28.13. Cf. RE s.v.
'Domitius' col. 1325 (Münze? ; CAH 1X 163f.
ius sacerdotum subrogandorum a collegiis ad populum transtulit

The normal method of filling vacant positions in the priestly colleges was
by cooptation until 104 B.C. Domitius' law made the selection of new
priests henceforth subject to a form of popular election according to which
seventeen of the thirty-five tribes chose a candidate to be coopted by the
members of the college. The precedent for this method was supplied by the
selection of the pontifex maximus which had been conducted in similar
fashion since the third century B.C. ; cf. L. R. Taylor, CPA 37 (1942),
421ff. The /ex Domitia continued to operate until Sulla restored the right of
cooptation to the colleges themselves (though not with regard to the elec-
tion of the pontifex maximus). 1n 63 B.C. it was resurrected by Caesar's
tribune T. Labienus ; Dio 37.37.1. Under the Principate selection of the
priests passed to the senate, whose choice was subject to imperial com-
mendation and popular ratification ; cf. Sherwin-White, Pliny, 273.
The plurals in the present text are not exaggerations. Domitius law
seemingly applied to all the major priesthoods ; cf. Ascon. 80 Clark ; Cic.
Ad Fam. 1.5.3 ; De Leg. Agr. 2.16. The popularity of his action is reflected
in his own election as pontifex maximus the following year. Liv. Per. 67 ;
Cic. Pro Reg. Deiot. 31 ; Val. Max. 6.5.5. Cf. RE L.c., and for the political
importance of priesthoods in the late Republic see L. R. Taylor, Party
Politics in the Age of Caesar (1968 fifth printing), 90f.
at In consulatu Allobrogibus Aruernisque superatis elephanto per prouinciam

uectus est turba militum quasi inter sollemnia triumphi prosequente
Suetonius confuses the consul of 96 B.C. with his father, the consul of
122 B.C. on whom see RE s.v. Domitius' cols. 1322 ff (Münzen) ; CAH IX
litff. Roman military successes in the mid-120's, originally occasioned by
appeals from Massilia against the Salluvii (Florus 1.37.3), and the
establishment of a military presence to safeguard the coastal land corridor
to Spain led to renewed conflicts with the tribes of southern Gaul at the end
of the decade ; cf. CAH ic. (Last); E. Badian, Roman Imperialism in the
Late Republic (1972), 24. Domitius was consul in Gaul in 122 B.C. and
proconsul there the following year; MRR I 516; 522. He was joined in
121 B.C. by the consul Q. Fabius Maximus. Both appear in the Acta
Triumphorum for 120 (above, 27), Domitius for victories over the Arverni,
cf. Vell. Pat. 2.10.2; Strabo 4.2.3, Fabius, who took the cognomen
AN HISTORICAL COMMENTARY 3l
Allobrogicus, for successes against their allies the Allobroges and against
the king of the Arverni. Livy, Per. 61, however, and his followers, App.
Celt. 12 ; Oros. 5.13.2, record victories by Domitius against the Allobro-
ges. The Livian tradition is favoured by Last, op. cit., despite the Acta
Triumphorum. Similarly Broughton, MRR 1 532, favours Livy and Orosius
against Suetonius when they refer Domitius' victories not to his consulate
but the year of the proconsulship.
Of rather more importance than deciding which victories were won and
by whom is the basic involvement of Domitius in the subjection and initial
pacification of Narbonensis which inaugurated an association of long stand-
ing between this area and the Ahenobarbi ; cf. E. Badian, Foreign Clien-
telae (1958), 264f ; Syme, JRS 60 (1970), 33. After the decisive battle
fought at the [sara in August 121 B.C., Plin. NH 7. 166, against the com-
bined Allobroges and Arverni, an extensive area, stretching roughly from
modern Geneva to the Pyrenees, was brought under Roman control. How
long after this encounter Domitius remained in Gaul as proconsul is
unknown. The discovery of a milestone bearing his name (AE [1952]
no. 38) has suggested to Broughton, MRR II 644, that the proconsulship
should be extended to 118 B.C. when the colony at Narbo Martius was
founded since the stone was found on the Via Domitia near Narbo ; con-
sequently, Domitius' triumph should be placed in 118 B.C. or even later.
Badian, op. cit., 313, in rejecting this position argues that there is little
evidence of formal provincial organisation in the area immediately after
121 B.C., except for the construction of Domitius" road from the Pyrenees
to the Rhone. In addition it is not certain that Narbo was founded in
118 B.C. ; for the recent debate see B. M. Levick, CQ n.s. 21 (1971), 170ff
with bibliography. But the establishment of Domitian patronage in the late
120's in Narbonensis is beyond dispute. See in general C. H. Benedict, The
Romans in Southern Gaul in AJP 63 (1942), 38ff ; P. M. Duval, CRAT
(1951), 161ff; Revue archéologique de Narbonnaise | (1968), 3ff (also
with bibliography).
For Domitius! successful employment of elephants in battle cf. Flor.
1.37.5 ; Oros. 5.13.2, and for the victory celebrations, Flor. 1.37.6. Cf.
Weinstock, DJ, 78 ; 290 n.1 suggesting in Suetonius’ reference to Domitius"
procession "a certain Greek symbolism," which is unclear.
2.2 in hunc
The consul of 96 B.C.
32 SUETONIUS’ LIFE OF NERO
dixit Licinius Crassus orator non esse mirandum, quod aeneam barbam
haberet, cui os ferreum, cor plumbeum esset
For the political career of L. Licinius Crassus see MRR II 579, and for
the feud between Crassus and Domitius, RE s.v. ‘Domitius’ col. 1326
(Münzer) ; CAH IX 173f. Crassus was an outstanding orator of his day,
rivalled only by M. Antonius, and greatly admired by Cicero. He was
known especially for his use of rhetorical wit, /epos, with which the present
dictum is perfectly in keeping. See further M. L. Clarke, Rhetoric at Rome
(1953), 45f ; A. D. Leeman, Orationis Ratio (1963), 59ff ; G. Kennedy,
The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World (1972), 84ff. The feud with
Domitius came to a head in their censorship of 92 B.C. (above, 27). The
enmity between the censors had a more substantial basis than Domitius' at-
tack on his colleague's luxurious habits suggests, though the affair was not
altogether one-sided ; Val. Max. 9.1.4 ; Plin. NH 17.1-6 ; cf. Cic. De Orat.
2.227 ;. Brut. 164f. It arose from a clash of interests over the new colony at
Narbo Martius (above, 31) in southern Gaul where the Ahenobarbi seem to
have been concerned not to allow their influence in the area become ob-
scured by rival political individuals or groups. The contest for extra-Italian
political support underlay the dispute ; cf. Badian, Foreign Clientelae, 264f ;
Studies in Greek and Roman History (1964), 93f ; for coins carrying the
portraits of Domitius and Crassus which refer to the Gallic campaigns and
the foundation of Narbo, H. Mattingly, JRS 12 (1922), 230ff ; Levick, art.
cit.
huius filius
The consul of 54 B.C. For his political career see RE s.v. Domitius?
cols. 1334ff (Munzer); MRR Il 560.
praetor
L. Domitius was praetor in 58 ; MRR II 194. As aedile at an unknown
date he had provided circenses ; Plin. NH 8.131. In 66 B.C. he had
displayed violent opposition to the proposal of the popularis tribune. C.
Manilius, that the franchise be extended to freedmen, Ascon. 45 Clark, not
untypically, Cic. Pro Mil. 22. The emendation of quaestura for praetura in
Ascon. ic. could mean that Domitius was quaestor in 66 B.C., but there is
no other evidence for the date of the quaestorship and the reading praetura
might be a reference to Cicero's praetorship which was in 66 B.C. ; Münzer,
Lc. ; E. Badian, Studies in Greek and Roman History (1964), 143.
C. Caesarem abeuntem consulatu, quem aduersus auspicia legesque gessisse

existimabatur, ad disquisitionem senatus uocauit
During Caesar's consulship of 59 B.C., under the terms of an agreement
concluded beforehand by Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus, certain measures
were enacted designed to secure the wishes of the three dynasts. A lex
agraria, the purpose of which was to provide land for Pompey's veterans,
was passed by the comitia after being rejected by the senate, in spite of the
vetoes of three tribunes and the attempt of Caesar's consular colleague, M.
Calpurnius Bibulus. to speak against it. Bibulus was forcibly restrained, and
subsequently used the religious device of seruatio to prevent the enactment
of further legislation by Caesar, though to no avail; cf. MRR II 187f.
Cicero. in Vat. 16ff. believed that Caesar's laws were passed per uim and
contra auspicia and, Pro Sest. 135, contrary to the /ex Caecilia Didia and
lex Licinia Iunia. On the basis of Cic. Ad Att. 2.16.2, A. W. Lintott,
Violence in Republican Rome (1968), 144, states that "the main charge
against Caesar would have been the use of violence against a consul and
tribune". For the role of Domitius, praetor in 58 B.C., cf. Schol. Bob., 130,
Stangl ; Suet. /u/. 23.1. It is clear from Suet. 7u/. 23.1 that Caesar was
prepared to submit to an investigation before the senate, but the outcome
was inconsequential — three days of debate with Caesar defending himself
in three speeches ; cf. Schol. Bob.. 130 ; 146, Stangl. Cf. Lintott, op. cit.,
145. No record of the sequel remains. but the speeches made by Domitius
were later used as anti-Caesarian propaganda, L. R. Taylor. Party Politics
ín the Age of Caesar (1968), 137. Cf. in general CAH IX 532ff. and on
laws passed by violence Lintott, op. cit., 132ff.
mox consul
In 54 B.C. ; MRR li 221. in the previous year, with Pompey and
Crassus as consuls, Caesar's Gallic command had been extended for a fur-
ther five years; MRR II 215. For Domitius! clash with the publicani in
54 B.C., Cic. Ad Q. Frat. 2.13.2; Ad Att. 4.15.7 ; 17.2.
imperatorem
Cf. Weinstock, DJ. 88f.
ab exercitibus Gallicis retrahere temptauit

The tribune P. Vatinius secured Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum for five
years as Caesar's province in 59 B.C. To this was added, on Pompey's
proposal, Transalpine Gaul when the governor elect died. Munzer, RE s.v.
'Domitius' col. 1336, has observed that Suetonius is largely inaccurate here.
As a consular candidate for 55 B.C. with the triumvirate weakening.

Domitius had threatened to deprive Caesar of his army if elected ; Suet. Jul
24.1 ; but during the latter's consulship was unable to do so and con-
sequently used other means to oppose Caesar ; Dio 39.60.2-4 ; 64 ; Cic. Ad
Q. Frat. 2.11.2. Caesarian possession of an area traditionally associated
with the Ahenobarbi will have particularly rankled Domitius ; Syme, RR,
45. T. Frank, AJP 58 (1937), 2251T, believed that the drama by Curiatius
Maternus entitled Domitius was intended as an attack on Nero's favourite,
Vatinius, and depended for its effect on the opposition of L. Domitius to
Caesar's henchman, Vatinius ; cf. Tac. Dial. 11 ; Ann. 15.34.
successorque ei per factionem nominatus

Domitius was appointed to the Gailic command in 49 B.C. ; MRR Il
261. He obviously had not proceeded to a province on the expiry of his
consulship but was now affected by Pompey's law requiring provincial com-
mands of ex-magistrates who had not so served.
factionem
A definition of factio is important here in view of R. Seager's recent
examination of the several meanings of the term, JRS 62 (1972), S3ff
(with previous literature). Seager, art. cit., 55 nn.28, 29, refers to the
present text twice and considers the word here to indicate "the manner of
attack, ‘by concerted action or intrigue,’ as opposed to 'civili bello,’ or the
numbers involved, ‘by a group,’ as opposed to ‘a singulis" ; the term may
be used with more likelihood to convey equal notions of ""concerted action’
and 'intrigue,"" and with disapproval. All of this, however, is not altogether
accurate because it fails to take account of Suetonius’ earlier statement, Ju.
34.1, per tumultum successor ei nominatus, where tumultus is plainly
synonymous with factio here. Clearly then, Suetonius is not necessarily
thinking in terms of Republican 'factional' politics, nor is there any disap-
proval, implicit or otherwise, in the passage. There does not have to be any
idea of a group action in the sense of intrigue, for Suetonius most probably
has in mind the reaction of the senate on Ist January, 49 B.C. to the read-
ing of Caesar's letter ; cf. App. BC 2.32, ég' @ d% opddpa návrec ávéxpayov,
ws Eni nodguov xatayyedia, diadoyxov elvat Agixtov Aopitiov. Cf. also Cic.
Ad Fam. 16.12.3.
principio ciuilis belli ad Corfinium captus est

Domitius did not arrive to take up his command in Gaul. As Caesar
made his southern advance through Italy from Ravenna, Pompey and the
consuls of 49 B.C. left Rome with the intention of concentrating their for-
ces at Luceria in the south. Domitius' appointment as proconsul technically
gave him imperium equal to that of Pompey and he insisted on confronting
Caesar at Corfinium despite repeated appeals from Pompey that he abandon
his position before being cut off; cf. Cic. Ad Att. 8.12 B ; C. At Caesar's
blockade of Corfinium Domitius appealed for aid to Pompey who, ap-
parently having decided upon the evacuation of Italy, replied only that
Domitius must extricate himself as best he could. When Domitius' troops
learned of his intended flight, the city was handed over to Caesar who took
command of the troops but allowed Domitius to depart. Caes. BC 1.15-23 ;
Dio 41.10-11 ; cf. Suet. Jul. 34.1 ; Vell. Pat. 2.50.1 ; RE s.v. 'Domitius'
cols. 1338ff (Münzer) ; CAH IX 641f. The most recent narrative of events
is that of A. Burns, Pompey's Strategy and Domitius! Stand at Corfinium in
Historia 15 (1966), 74ff. Burns’ sound discussion is very favourable to
Domitius and stresses, contrary to the usual view, that Domitius' position at
Corfinium was initially justifiable in military terms. His abandonment by
Pompey was the result of personal considerations. For the correspondence
of Domitius and Pompey see D. R. Shackleton Bailey, JRS 46 (1956), 57ff.
2.3 unde dimissus

Domitius figured as an example of Caesar's clementia, on which see
Weinstock, DJ, 233f ; Ch. Wirszubski, Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome
(1950), [SOff. The consistent policy of sparing enemies on the part of the
dictator was perhaps based on genuine hatred of civil disorder ; Taylor, op.
cit., 164f. In this case Caesar may have hoped that Domitius would join
him; App. BC 2.38. Cf. below, 66 and J/-ES 4 (1976), 2451T for imperial
virtues.
Massiliensis obsidione laborantis cum aduentu suo confirmasset, repente

destituit
[n view of the traditional interest of the Domitii in southern Gaul (above,
31f) it is not surprising that Massilia remained loyal to L. Domitius ; cf.
Caes. BC 1.36.1. Indeed, Badian describes this action as the "climax of
their sustained interest in the region" ; Foreign Clientelae (1958), 265 ; cf.
Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic (1972), 24.
Suetonius’ account here differs from Caesar's own record of events. The
latter has no record of a siege of Massilia before the arrival of Domitius. It
is more likely that Domitius encouraged the city to support Pompey than to
36 SUFTONIUS' LIFE OF NERO
maintain neutrality, but after Domitius was twice defeated in naval battles
by the Caesarian admiral D. Brutus, Massilia capitulated to Caesar return-
ing from Spain. See Caes. BC 1.17.4 ; 34.2; 36; 56-58; 2.3: 22; 28,
32; Dio 41.21.3; 25.2. Cf. RE s.v. Domitius! col. 1341 (Münzer).
acieque demum Pharsalica occubuit

Domitius probably commanded the left wing of the Pompeian forces at
the battle of Pharsalus ; cf. Cic. Phil. 2.71 ; Tac. Ann. 4.44. According to
Caesar. BC 3.99.5. his death was not glorious ; for the optimate dissensions
before the battle over the spoiis of prospective victory. Caes. BC 3.83 ; Plut.
Caes. 42.1-2; Pomp. 67.6; RE s.v. Domitius' col. 1342 (Münzen).
uir neque satis constans

Suetonius may have had in mind here Domitius' flight in 55 B.C. from
an attack organised by Pompey and Crassus at the time of Domitius' can-
didature for the consulship. He had been encouraged to resist the triumvirs
by Cato. whom he deserted; Cic. Ad Att. 4.8a.2 ; Plut. Cato Min. 41.2ff;
Dio 39.31.1f. For Cicero's verdict, that Domitius was stupid, Ad Att.
1.1.4 ; 8.1.3.
in desperatione rerum mortem timore appetitam ita expauit, ut haustum

uenenum paenitentia euomuerit medicumque manumiserit, quod sibi prudens
ac sciens minus noxium temperasset
Cf. Plin. NH 7.186 ; Sen. De Benef. 3.24 ; Plut. Caes. 34.3-4 for similar
descriptions of Domitius at Corfinium. Suetonius alone, however, has the
detail of the manumission.
consultante autem Cn. Pompeio de mediis ac neutram partem sequentibus

solus censuit hostium numero habendos
For the legacy of crudelitas to Nero see s.26.1 and cf. above, 29 ; for the
stormy relations between Domitius and Pompey. Plut. Pomp. 67.3 ; App.
BC 2.67.
3.1 filium
The consul of 32 B.C. For his political career. MRR II 560; RE s.v
‘Domitius’ cols. 1328ff (Münzer). [n early life he twice benefitted from
Caesar's clemency : he was present with his father at the siege of Corfinium
and also fought at Pharsalus (above, 35f). On both occasions he was par-
doned ; Caes. BC 1.23.2-3 ; Sen. De Benef. 3.24. He subsequently achieved
distinction as an admiral first in the war between Antony and the

Liberators, then in the war of Antony and Octavian.
is inter conscios Caesarianae necis quamquam insons damnatus lege Pedia

Cicero, Phil. 2.27 ; 30, includes Domitius among the conspirators who
put Caesar to death, and Dio, 48.7.4-5 ; 54.4, considers his complicity cer-
tain enough. App. BC 5.61-2 could be urged either way ; in an exchange
between Octavian and an envoy from Antony, Octavian considers Domitius
an assassin while the other maintains his innocence. Suetonius is rather
confused: Domitius is conscius but insons. The most reasonable view
should be to regard Domitius as sympathetic to the organisation of the con-
spiracy against Caesar but not among those who actually struck the blows ;
cf. Syme, RR, 216. There is little reason to follow the view that the con-
fusion in the sources results from a preference of Nero not to have an
assassin among his ancestors, J. D. Denniston, ed., Cic. Phil. 1, II (1926),
114f. Neither Appian nor particularly Suetonius had any reason to transmit
Neronian propaganda. If such a story ever became an ‘official version’ it
should have turned up in Dio presumably. For Domitius' condemnation see
Dio 48.54.4 ; App. BC 5.55; 61 ; 62. For the /ex Pedia of 43 B.C. which
revoked the amnesty granted the previous year to Caesar's murderers, Vell.
Pat. 2.69.5. Cf. in general CAH X 43f; RE s.v. 'Domitius' col. 1328 ; for
Caesars death, CAH IX 735ff ; M. Gelzer, Caesar (1968), 272ff.
cum ad Cassium Brutumque se propinqua sibi cognatione iunctos contulisset

Domitius was among the supporters of Brutus and Cassius who left Rome
with them for Macedonia and Syria after the murder of Caesar, Cic. Ad Att.
16.4.4.
propinqua sibi cognatione

Domitius mother Porcia was a sister of Cato, the uncle of Brutus, the
brother-in-law of Cassius ; cf. Syme, RR, 44 ; 69. For the reiuctance of the
Ahenobarbi to marry outside the nobility see T. P. Wiseman, New Men in
the Roman Senate (1971), 53f.
post utriusque interitum

At the first (Cassius) and second (Brutus) battles of Philippi, September
42 B.C.
classem olim commissam retinuit

Domitius took part in the preparation of the Republican fleet in 44 B.C.,
perhaps officially as a legate ; Cic. Ad Art. 16.4.4. ; MRR I] 332 ; Vell. Pat.
2.72.3; 76.2. In 42 B.C. he was put in charge of a fleet of fifty ships
together with a legion and bowmen and sent to join Staius Murcus in the
Adriatic where their purpose was to intercept supplies intended for the for-
ces of Antony ; App. BC 4.86 ; 99 ; 100 ; 108. At the first battle of Philippi
the Republican admirals routed an Antonian convoy under Domitius
Calvinus which was transporting troops to Octavian ; App. BC 4.115-6.
For the coins which he issued to celebrate this victory, CRRBM 1l 487f. Af-
ter Philippi Domitius based himself in the Ionian Gulf and conducted
guerrilla campaigns against areas subject to Antony and Octavian ; App. BC
5.26 ; 61 ; Dio 48.7.4-5 ; cf. Tac. Ann. 4.44. RE s.v. Domitius' col. 1329
(Münzer).
auxit etiam
Appian alone gives details of the size of Domitius' fleet : in 42 B.C. the
total is fifty ships, one legion, a contingent of archers; BC 4.86; in
4] B.C. seventy ships, two legions, and archers ; BC 5.26. If the figures are
genuine they should represent acquisitions from the battle against Domitius
Calvinus (above) or in subsequent plundering raids. The increase did not
come from the eighty ships of Staius Murcus which were handed over to
Sextus Pompeius after Philippi ; App. BC 4.86 ; Vell. Pat. 2.72.4. Cf. P. A.
Brunt, /talian Manpower (1971), 507f.
nec nisi partibus ubique profligatis M. Antonio sponte et ingentis meriti loco
tradidit
After Philippi the remnants of the Republicans were compelled to seek
new political alliances as conflict brewed between Antony and Octavian.
Syme, RR, 216, speaks of a "complete revolution of alliances" at this
period. Domitius refused as long as possible to relinquish his independence
but ultimately, as Dio, 48.16.2, hints, there was no alternative but to
negotiate. In Appian's version of the agreement with Antony, BC 5.55-6,
Domitius and Antony are presented in equal terms, the diplomacy being led
by C. Asinius Pollio ; App. BC 5.50 ; Vell. Pat. 2.76.2. The importance at-
tached to the compact with Antony is illustrated by the issue of coins which
honoured both men as imperatores ; CRRBM II 494f.
3.2 solusque omnium ex iis, qui pari lege damnati erant, restitutus. in
patriam amplissimos honores percucurrit
The Pact of Brundisium (40 B.C.) which averted temporarily the threat-
ened strife between Antony and Octavian included an amnesty for former
Republicans who had joined Antony which was to be recognised by Oc-

tavian ; App. BC 5.65 ; Dio 48.29.2 ; Syme, RR, 217 ; RE s.v. 'Domitius'
col. 1329. Thus the ban of outlawry which had been on Domitius since the
passing of the /ex Pedia (above, 37) was removed. He subsequently gover-
ned the province of Bithynia and held the consulship in 32 B.C., maintain-
ing his allegiance to Antony. It is not known whether he was the only one
to be pardoned and to continue his cursus in this way. Of the sixty people
allegedly involved in the plot to remove Caesar, Suet. /u/. 80.4, only about
a third can be identified ; of these in turn knowledge is scarce after Caesar's
death. At Ju/. 89 Suetonius makes it clear that practically all the con-
spirators soon died in one way or another, and of those definitely known to
have been implicated in the conspiracy none subsequently held the con-
sulship. Domitius may therefore have been unique in this respect. Dio,
48.29.2, however, suggests that other conspirators did survive, which
remains possible. For the catalogue of conspirators see RE X cols. 254f.
The consulship which Domitius held had been arranged by Octavian and
Antony in 39 B.C. ; App. BC 5.73. Domitius was not so indispensable to
Antony as to avoid removal from Rome as a concession to Octavian for a
period which probably extended to 32 B.C. ; App. BC 5.63 ; MRR II 412.
In general, RE s.v. "Domitius" col. 1330 (Münze ; CAH X 43.
ac subinde redintegrata dissensione ciuili

The final conflict between Antony and Octavian. Domitius was in Rome
at the beginning of 32 B.C. to enter office as consul but left in March ac-
companied by his colleague and others to join Antony at Ephesus ; Dio
50.2.6 ; see Syme, RR, 278 on the three hundred senators who left Rome
and for Octavia in Rome in 32 B.C. RE s.v. 'Domitius' col. 1330 (Münzer).
eidem Antonio legatus

It is not known if Suetonius gives the official position of Domitius, who
probably held a naval command ; cf. Strabo 14.1.42.
delatam sibi summam imperii ab iis, quos Cleopatrae pudebat, neque susci-
pere neque recusare fidenter propter subitam ualitudinem ausus
The text perhaps implies that Domitius was second in importance only to
Antony himself. The report of this offer of full leadership is not mentioned
elsewhere. For Domitius' position as head of what remained of the sup-
porters of Cato and opposition to Cleopatra, see Dio $0.13.6 ; Vell. Pat.
2.84.2; Plut. Ant. 56.2; Syme, RR, 28If.
transiit ad Augustum et in diebus paucis obiit

For the string of defections to Octavian prior to the battle of Actium,
Syme, RR, 296. The erosion of Antony's power was due largely to hatred of
Cleopatra among his followers. Domitius was afflicted by a fatal illness so
that in military terms he can have been of little use to Octavian. But if it is
correct to see him as Antony's senior general (above) his presence in Oc-
tavian's camp will have been of great importance. See Dio 50.13.6 ; Vell.
Pat. 2.84.2 ; Plut. Ant. 63.2 ; Tac. Ana. 4.44 ; cf. RE s.v. “‘Domitius’ col.
1330; CAH X 103.
The use of Augustus is obviously anachronistic.
nonnulla et ipse infamia aspersus

But Antony sent Domitius" belongings after him according to Plut.
Ant. 63.2-3.
4. Ex hoc Domitius nascitur

The consul of 16 B.C., for whom see P/R? D 128. His marriage to An-
tonia, the elder daughter of Antony and Octavia and niece of Augustus,
Plut. Ant. 87, wasof importance for securing his adherence to the Prin-
cipate. His incorporation within the imperial family is some indication of
the political eminence of his family. The elevation to the patriciate in
30 B.C. (above, 27) preceded Domitius' aedileship which may mean that at
that date his cursus had not even begun ; cf. RE s.v. 'Domitius' col. 1344
(Groag). His date of birth is unknown but he died in A.D. 25. The marriage
to Antonia probably took place after the death of Antony in 30 B.C. ; RE
Lc. col. 1343. Perhaps then the period 55-50 B.C. is the approximate time
of birth.
quem emptorem familiae pecuniaeque in testamento Augusti fuisse mox

uulgo notatum est
A reference to the normal private procedure of succession per aes et
libram in which an executor fictitiously purchased the estate of the deceased
person and distributed it according to the terms of the will. See Gaius /nstit.
2.103, familiae emptor, id est, qui a testatore familiam accipiebat ... dicis
gratia propter ueteris iuris imitationem familiae emptor adhibetur , Jolowicz,
Historical Introduction’, 242ff. The phrase emptor familiae pecuniaeque is
technically precise ; cf. the formula familiam pecuniamque tuam endo man-
datela tua custodelaque mea ; Gaius Instit. 2.104. For records of Augustus’
will, Suet. Aug. 101 ; Tac. Ann. 1.8; Dio 56.32, with no mention of the
executor.
aurigandi arte
Inherited by Nero; cf. above, 29 ; below, 135ff.
ornamentis triumphalibus ex Germanico bello

In the last years of the first century B.C. Domitius led an expedition
which succeeded in crossing the Elbe and was followed by the erection of an
altar to Augustus on the river bank. This was done while Domitius was
perhaps legate of Illyricum; Dio 55.10a.2; Tac. Ann. 4.44.3; RE sv.
"Domitius" col. [344 (Groag) ; CAH X 366 (Syme) ; cf. C. M. Wells, The
German Policy of Augustus (1972), 158f. For the possibility, however, that
Domitius succeeded Tiberius in Germany in 6 B.C. on the latter's
retirement to Rhodes, E. Ritterling, Fasti des romischen Deutschland unter
dem Prinzipat (1932), 8 ; cf. Syme, RR, 401. According to Tacitus, /.c., it
was for this campaign that Domitius received the ornamenta triumphalia;
cf. PIR? D 128 ; RE Lc. ; A. E. Gordon, Univ. Calif. Pub. Class. Arch. 2
(1952), 313 ; Vell. Pat. 2.10.2. It is certain that Domitius held the Rhine
command from A.D. 1, though only briefly and with less success, for he
was succeeded in the same year by M. Vinicius ; Dio 55.10a. 3 ; Vell. Pat.
2.104.2 ; Tac. Ann. 1.63 ; Ritterling, op. cit., 9 ; RE l.c, col. 1345 ; Wells,
op. cit., 159.
For the significance of the ornamenta triumphalia see below, 98f.
uerum arrogans, profusus, immitis

Contrast, however, Vell. Pat. 2.72.3, eminentissimae ac nobilissimae
simplicitatis uir.
censorem L. Plancum uia sibi decedere aedilis coegit

For L. Munatius Plancus, cos. 42 B.C., censor in 22, see PIR' M 534.
The clash with Domitius may have originated from differences between
Plancus and the consul of 32 B.C. since Plancus, a former Antonian, had
led a group which favoured Cleopatra ; cf. above, 39 ; Vell. Pat. 2.83 ; Plin.
NH 9.121 ; Macrob. 3.17.6. As the aediles were expected to provide games
and circuses it may be that these are the wenationes and munus of the next
sentence. See further below, 42.
praeturae consulatusque honore

Domitius! consulship in 16 B.C. is a relatively short interval of only six
years away from the aedileship of 22 B.C., if Suetonius is correct to refer
the latter to that year. Augustan favour might account for the fact. Possibly,
though, Suetonius should have written praetor for aedilis in the previous
clause. Otherwise the date of the praetorship is unknown ; cf. RE s.v.
"Domitius" col. 1344 (Groag), which prefers 19 B.C.
sed tanta saeuitia, ut necesse fuerit Augusto clam frustra monitum edicto
coercere
When was Augustus’ edict issued? If in 16 B.C., the year of Domitius"
consulship (thus RE /.c.), then the text implies the exercise of coercitio by
Augustus within the city which supports the view of A. H. M. Jones,
Studies, 15, that after 19 B.C. " Augustus exercised his imperium not only
in his own provinces, and when occasion arose in the public provinces, but
also in Italy and Rome itself". This is on the assumption that Suetonius
uses the term coercere in a technical sense, which is likely enough ; cf.
s.16.2. If, however, the edict was issued during Domitius' praetorship then
possibly the text implies coercitio within the city before 19 B.C. for which
there was no constitutional basis. The same is true for the aedileship of
22 B.C. which might be the most likely time for the games given by
Domitius (although the praetorship is not excluded). Suetonius is not
necessarily describing Domitius! acta in chronological order.
5.1 Antonia maiore

The elder daughter of Antony and Octavia ; PIR? A 884 ; cf. above, 40.
Suetonius avoids confusion with her sister; cf. Tac. Ann. 4.44. Cf. Plut.
Ant. 87 ; Dio 48.54.4.
patrem Neronis
The consul of A.D. 32; PIR? D 127; RE s.v. Domitius" cols. 1331ff
(Groag). The year of his birth is not known. Groag, RE /.c., describes him
as "quite young" at the time of his trip to the East with Germanicus in
A.D. 17 (below, 43). He was consul for a full year ; Dio 58.20.1 ; cf. Sen.
Contr. 9.4.18 for the baths built by Domitius during his consulship ; Tac.
Ann. 6.45 for his service on an imperial commission to assess compensation
after a fire in Rome.
omni parte uitae detestabilem

To Suetonius’ examples might have been added Domitius" suit against his
sister, Quint. 6.1.50, and his slothfulness, Sen. Contr. 9.4.18. Contrast,
however, Vell. Pat. 2.10.2, nobilissimae simplicitatis iuuenem, as of his
father ; above, 41.
siquidem comes ad Orientem C. Caesaris iuuenis

Suetonius makes an error of fact here since Domitius was too young,
perhaps not even born, to have taken part in C. Caesar's expedition ;
Groag, RE s.v. ‘Domitius’ col. 1331 ; P/R? D 127. Dessau, PIR! D 109,
suggested that Suetonius confused Gaius with Germanicus who undertook
an eastern mission in A.D. 17. For the habitual appointment by legates and
proconsuls of an advisory consilium see Sherwin-White, Pliny, 684. Only
three of the members of Germanicus' staff are known by name, Q.
Veranius, Q. Servaeus, L. Vitellius ; yet it is clear enough that there were
more besides these ; Tac. Ann. 2.71-2; 74; 3.10; 13; 19. It is perfectly
possible, therefore, that Domitius was among the ignoti of the consilium and
that this was his first experience of official business. Cf. RE s.v. Domitius
col. 1333.
5.2 dominis factionum

See below, 136.
maiestatis quoque et adulteriorum incestique cum sorore Lepida sub excessu

Tiberi reus
Cf. Tac. Ann. 6.47-8 ; Dio 58.27. In A.D. 37 the former wife of the
delator Satrius Secundus, Albucilla, was accused of impietas in principem ;
Domitius was cited as conscius et adulter eius , Tac. Ann. 6.47.2. Her accu-
ser appears to have been D. Laelius Balbus (of whom little is known),
though this is not certain ; Tac. Ann. 6.47.1 ; 48.6. The charges, however,
were probably the result of machinations on the part of Macro; Dio
58.27.2 ; Tac. Ann. 6.47.4. Two other men were implicated with Albucilla
and Domitius, C. Vibius Marsus, cos. A.D. 17, and L. Arruntius, cos.
A.D. 6 ; Tac. Ann. 6.47.2. P. Y. Forsyth, Phoenix 23 (1969), 204ff, has
demonstrated a plausible set of marriage connections between Balbus, Mar-
sus, and Arruntius, and concludes from this that a plan was in operation to
secure the succession for Domitius. Hence the intervention of Macro. This
suggestion makes good sense, given Tiberius' hesitation about naming a
successor; Tac. Ann. 6.46. Not only was Domitius a descendant of
Augustus, he was also married to the daughter of Germanicus ; Tac. Ana.
4.75. Tacitus and Dio do not include Domitia Lepida (P7R? D 180) in their
version of this episode. But the friction which may be imagined to have
arisen between Domitia and Agrippina may help explain the events of
A.D. 53 ; cf. below, 49f. Domitius had been chosen in A.D. 36 to par-
ticipate in a commission to assess damages after a fire in Rome ; Tac. Amn.
6.45. That was his last public service. His neglect under Caligula, then,
might be attributable to the suspicious designs of the last months of

Tiberius' reign, unless his illness was of long duration. Cf. RE s.v.
'Domitius' col. 1333 (Groag).
mutatione temporum euasit

Cf. Tac. Ann. 6.48.1 ; Dio 58.27.5. For the date of Tiberius’ death see
below, 4$.
decessitque Pyrgis
At the turn of A.D. 40/1 when Nero was three years old ; cf. below, 48.
Agrippina Germanico genita

The marriage belongs to A.D. 28 ; Tac. Ann. 4.75 ; Plut. Ant. 87 ; Dio
58.20.1; 61.2.3. It was perhaps Domitius! second marriage; RE s.v.
"Domitius" col. 1332.
Henceforth all dates are A.D. unless otherwise stated.
Sections 6-7 : The Childhood of Nero
Suetonius' account of Nero's childhood contains errors of fact and detail.

For instance, in s.7.1 Suetonius is wrong on Nero's age at the time of his
adoption by Claudius and in s.7.2 he is careless (or confused by his sour-
ces) on the dates of Nero's early speeches. The account is also partial : the
inclusion of the terms infelicitas and immanitas naturae seem to indicate
that Suetonius has not yet reached the portion of the biography whose con-
tents are /aude digna. The treatment thus continues directly from the tone
set by the catalogue of ancestral uitia. Concern for the sensational is ap-
parent in the reported dictum of Cn. Domitius (s.6.1) and the dream of
Seneca (s.7.1.). There is no attempt to probe behind the events described
and to estimate their significance.
[n spite of these deficiencies, however, these sections have the advantage
of providing the only continuous record of Nero's childhood and allow the
stages of his preparation for public life to be reconstructed clearly. In
Tacitus’ account (Ann. 12) his obvious sympathy for Britannicus and
distaste for Agrippina mean that Claudius' role in the grooming of Nero be-
comes minimal. In actuality, Claudius' wish may have been to prepare two
successors, Nero and Britannicus ; such a plan had precedents. In any case,
it is precisely the fact that the Principate had no formal constitutional ap-
paratus for the provision of an heir which gives the gradual preparation of
Nero for public life its importance. The personal struggle between Messalina
and Agrippina may have been real enough, but it is unrealistic in the end to
believe that Claudius sanctioned Nero's emergence while disapproving it.
Suetonius’ text at least avoids the awkwardnesses of the scheming nouerca
and pliant husband.
General Bibliography : J. Babelon. L'Enfance de Néron in Rev. Num.? 17
(1955), 129ff: H. Bardon, Les Empereurs et les lettres latines (1968),
191ff ; R. M. Geer. Notes on the early Life of Nero in TAPA 62 (1931),
57ff ; Henderson. 19ff; Hohl. 350ff ; E. Meise, Untersuchungen zur Ge-
schichte der Julisch-Claudischen Dynastie (1969), 171ff ; M. P. O. Mor-
ford. The Training of three Roman Emperors in Phoenix 22 (1968), 57ff;
K. Kraft, Der politische Hintergrund von Senecas Apocolocyntosis in Histo-
ria 15 (1966). 96ff.
6.1 Nero natus est

Feet first according to Pliny, NH 7.45-6. who regarded the event as a
sign of ill-boding. The information came from the memoirs of Agrippina.
Anti
Antium, an ancient colony some thirty-five miles south of Rome on the
coast of Latium, flourished in the Julio-Claudian period as a favourite im-
perial resort ; Strabo 5.3.5 ; Tac. Ann. 14.3; 15.23 ; Suet. Aug. 58 ; Tib.
38 ; Cal. 49 ; Dio 58.25.2 ; 62.15.7. It was besides a centre for the worship
of the goddess Fortuna ; cf. Hor. Od. 1.35 ; App. BC 5.24 ; Suet. Cal. 57.3.
It was the birthplace of Caligula and of Nero's daughter ; Suet. Ca/. 8 ; Tac.
Ann. 15.23.2. Nero later converted his place of birth into a splendid im-
perial palace on the seafront. For a description of the archaeological re-
mains and subsequent development of the palace see Blake, Construction,
40f and plate 13, fig. 3. On Antium in general, RE I cols. 2561ff. Cf. also
70 ; 150.
post VIIII. mensem quam Tiberius excessit

Tiberius’ death occurred on 16th March, 37 ; Tac. Ann. 6.50 ; Suet. Tib.
73.] ; V. Ehrenberg, A. H. M. Jones, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of
Augustus and Tiberius (1955), 43, 47. December was thus the month of
Nero's birth.
XVIII. Kal. Ian.

Suetonius' date for Nero's birth, [5th December, is confirmed by entries
in the AFA, Smallwood, Documents, nos. 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, and by HA
Ver. 1.8, natus est Lucius Romae ... XVIII Kal. lanuariarum die quo et
Nero, qui rerum potitus est. The year of birth is most likely 37, though con-
fusion and inconsistencies in the sources mean that 38 and 39 are possible
alternatives ; cf. 62 ; Tac. Ann. 12.58 ; 25 ; Dio 61.3.1. For discussion, to
which nothing can be added that is conclusive, see Geer, art. cit. ; W. F.
Snyder, Nero's Birth in Egypt and his Year of Birth in Historia 13 (1964),
503ff; G. V. Sumner, Germanicus and Drusus Caesar in Latomus 26
(1967), 413ff, which, however, is confused on this point; see below, 48.
exoriente sole, paene ut radils prius quam terra contingeretur

Cf. Dio 61.2.1 mentioning a unique sunrise as a portent, perhaps an
elaboration of exoriente sole ; Heinz, Das Bild, 13. At birth a child was
placed before its father's feet for acknowledgement of paternity ; cf. s.5.2
sublato filio ; Suet. Aug. 5 ; Tib. 7.2. See P. Grimal, REL 49 (1971), 211f.
multis coiectantibus
Cf. Dio 61.2.1 for predictions of autocracy and matricide.
Domiti[i] patris uox, inter gratulationes amicorum negantis quicquam ex se

et Agrippina nisi detestabile et malo publico nasci potuisse
Cf. Dio 61.2.3 for the same statement ; Heinz, Das Bild, 14. The predic-
tion is associated with infelicitas (below) ; cf. Sen. De Clem. 1.18.3, quanto
autem non nasci melius fuit, quam numerari inter publico malo natos ; Hohi,
350, "offensichtlich ein Vaticinium ex euentu".
6.2 infelicitatis
Infelicitas is one of the key concepts around which Suetonius constructs
the biography of Nero. [t is specifically exemplified at s.39.1, and Nero's
loss of power in 68 is determined by predictions of his fate which have the
same theme (s.46 ; cf. also s.49.2 fatalem horam). There is thus an ironic
twist in Nero's own reference, s.40.3, to his perpetua singularisque felicitas.
To judge from the coinage Nero did not claim felicitas as an imperial virtue,
but he can hardly have been averse to dedications unép rz Tixng Népwvos
as in an inscription from Lycopolis in Egypt (Smallwood, Documents,
no. 420) even if this was a mere continuation of the honours previously
given to hellenistic monarchs (for which, Weinstock, DJ, 126f). The
fatalistic view of Nero still appears, with variation, in modern discussion:
“the seeds of failure in Nero... were sown in the years of (his)
preparation" ; Morford, art. cit., 72. Cf. above, 15.
die lustrico
The dies lustricus fell on the ninth day after the birth of a male child, in
Nero's case, therefore, 24th December, 37. It was the occasion for a ritual
of purification since birth was considered to defile both mother and child.
The ceremony was followed by the naming of the child, as here. Fest. De
Verb. Sign. 'Lustrici' ; Macrob. Sat. 1.16.36 ; DS s.v. 'Lustration' (II A).
C. Caesar, rogante sorore

For Caligula, at this point in the tenth month of his reign, P/R? I 217,
and for Agrippina, eldest of his three sisters, PIR? 1 641. The remainder of
the material in s.6.2 appears only in Suetonius ; cf. Heinz, Das Bild, 14.
Claudium patruum
For the future emperor Claudius, P/R? C 942, and at this time, below,
47f.
a quo mox principe Nero adoptatus est

Claudius acceded on 25th January, 41 ; Suet. Cal. 58 ; Claud. 10 ; cf.
PIR Lc. For his adoption of Nero see below, 53fT.
eius se dixit dare

Geer, art. cit., 59, observed that if Caligula's suggestion had been adop-
ted the name given to the child would have been Claudius' praenomen,
Tiberius, or cognomen, Nero, used as a substantive ; he opted for the latter
because of the name by which Nero was remembered. The matter is not of
great importance, but there are indications that Nero used the praenomen
Tiberius for a period ; cf. JLS 224 ( 2 Smallwood, Documents, no. 103) ;
Rostovtzeff, Rómische Bleitesserae (1905), 29. This partially supports the
statement of Zonaras, 11.10.32, 23-29D, that Nero was given the full
name Tiberius Claudius Nero Drusus Germanicus Caesar after the adoption
by Claudius. Cf. below, 53ff. At this time, however, the child was given the
praenomen Lucius in accordance with the tradition of his father's family ;
Tac. Ann. 11.11; Plut. Ant. 87; Aur. Vict. De Caes. 5.1.
tum Claudius inter ludibria aulae erat

Cf. Suet. Claud. 7-9, a series of humiliations suffered by Claudius under
Caligula which, together with the context of the present passage, emphasise
Claudius' position as an object of ridicule within the court circle. But for his
consulship in 37 see Suet. Claud. 7 ; Smallwood, Documents, 2. The public
image was perhaps different. On Claudius and Caligula see J. P. V. D.

Balsdon, The Emperor Gaius (1934), 41f; 187f.
6.3 Trimulus patrem amisit

The date of Cn. Domitius' death cannot be fixed with certainty but must
have preceded the death of Caligula on 24th January, 41, Suet. Cal. 58.1,
since the emperor was named as co-heir by Domitius in his will (s.6.3).
Likewise it must have followed the third birthday of Nero for the child to
qualify as trimulus at the time of father's death ; (for the meaning of
trimulus. three years old, see Geer, art. cit., 60). The interval cannot be
more closely delimited. Henderson's assertion, 23, that the death occurred
on Ifth December, 40, is an error based on a confusion of the date of
Domitius' birth recorded in the AFA (Smallwood, Documents, nos. 19, 21).
Sumner, Latomus 26 (1967), 413ff. apparently following an observation of
Groag (cf. P/R? D 127), assigns Domitius' death to the end of 39 or early
40 on the grounds that Domitius" name appears in the AFA for October, 39
but not for June, 40. This. however. is no strong argument. A glance at the
names of the Arval priests present over several successive sessions of the
college quickly shows that attendance fluctuated. Thus, at the meeting prior
to 25/6th October, 39 the exceptionally low number of three names ap-
pears ; Smallwood, Documents, no. 9. Further, Domitius" Arval colleague,
Paullus Fabius Persicus, appears in the record for 27th October, 39, is ab-
sent from the full list of 1st June, 40, but reappears under Claudius ;
Smallwood, Documents, nos. 9, 10. 13. There is thus no reason to assume
Domitius dead by June, 40. Sumner also seems to be in error in his
criticism of A. Pasoli (ed. AFA [1950], 80), who rightly accepts 11th
December as Domitius' birthday, because he misses the entry under the year
57 in which an offering to Domitius' memoria by the Arval priests is
preceded by a sacrifice ob natalem Cn. Domiti Ahenobarbi ; Smallwood,
Documents, no. 19. Domitius" death, then, belongs at the turn of 40/1,
between 15th December and 24th January.
heres
For the status and obligations of heirs see, for example, Jolowicz,
Historical Introduction’, 123f.
correptis per coheredem Gaium uniuersis bonts

Caligula is said to have encouraged bequests to himself from people not
even known to him; Suet. Ca/. 38.2 ; Dio 59.15.1-2 ; J. P. V. D. Balsdon,
The Emperor Gaius (1934), 185 ; cf. R. S. Rogers, TAPA 78 (1947), 146ff.
The object in naming an emperor in a will was to safeguard the remainder

of the inheritance for the prescribed heirs. In this case, Domitius may well
have had reason to worry about the implementation of his will, given his
involvement in a possible conspiracy to secure the succession for himself
shortly before Tiberius’ death ; see above, 43f. The text implies that only
two heirs were named by Domitius, for whose wealth, Quint. 6.1.50.
et subinde matre etiam relegata

In the late autumn of 39 Agrippina was banished to the Pontian islands
for her complicity in the conspiracy led by Cn. Lentulus Gaetulicus and M.
Aemilius Lepidus; Suet. Ca/. 24.3; Dio 59.3.6; 22.8; AFA for 39
( = Smallwood, Documents, no. 9), ob detecta nefaria con[silia in C. Ger-
mani] cum Cn. Lentuli Gaet[ulici —, dated to 27th October. For an account
of the conspiracy see Z. Stewart, Sejanus, Gaetulicus, and Seneca in AJP
74 (1953), 70ff. The implied chronology of Suetonius. that Agrippina’s
exile followed the death of Domitius her husband, is misleading. The events
occurred in reverse order and were separated by more than twelve months
(cf. above, 48). The attempt of Geer, art. cit., 60f, to circumvent this dif-
ficulty in Suetonius’ text by reading subinde with the main verb nutritus est
alone, dissociating it altogether from relegata, is reasonable enough but
perhaps hardly necessary given the high incidence of chronological mistakes
in Suetonius.
relegata
Relegatio did not involve loss of civil rights as the more extreme form of
exile, deportatio, but could entail loss of a proportion of the guilty party's
estate ; U. Brasiello, La repressione penale in diritto romano (1937), 281ff ;
292ff ; Garnsey. Social Status, 115ff. In this instance Agrippina did suffer
confiscation of property ; Dio 60.4.1. Relegare in Suetonius, however, is a
blanket-term for any form of banishment. He does not use the technical
terms deportatio, deportare which were only just appearing in legal language
at the time he wrote: Garnsey. Social Status, 113ff.
paene inops atque egens apud amitam Lepidam nutritus est sub duobus
paedagogis saltatore atque tonsore
The most obvious meaning of s.6.3 is that Nero was entrusted to the care
of his paternal aunt after the exile of Agrippina in 39. This action ap-
parently displayed the influence of Domitius, for possible strained relations
between the two women, above, 43f, would have prevented Agrippina from
voluntarily giving up her child to Domitia ; thus Geer, art. cit., 61. In Oc-
tober, 39, when the conspiracy of Gaetulicus was known in Rome (above,
49), Nero was approaching his second birthday. He was thus roughly two
years old when he entered Domitia's household. The length of time spent
there was not more than two years since Agrippina recovered charge of her
child when she returned to Rome in 41 ; s.6.4 ; Dio 60.4.1. But on Geer's
reading of the text (above, 49) the time spent with Domitia by Nero will
have been very brief : an interval from the death of Domitius at the turn of
40/1 until Claudius’ accession in January, 4l. It is not known, however,
precisely when Agrippina did return from exile. Dio, /.c., records her rein-
statement under 41, but it does not follow that Agrippina returned im-
mediately upon the accession of Claudius.
Whatever the interval of time involved, it is difficult to believe that dur-
ing its course Nero existed in a condition of quasi-poverty. Domitia was not
lacking in wealth; cf. Tac. Ann. 12.64-5. What attention Nero received
from the barber and dancer is not recorded, but it is unlikely that their ef-
fect was of any significance. It is too extreme a view to maintain, as
Babelon, art. cit., 37, that Nero's education, at the age of two years plus,
was deliberately neglected because of Messalina's fears that Nero would
supersede Britannicus. The latter was not even born for most of the time
Nero spent at the house of Domitia. Previously Nero had been cared for by
the nurses Alexandria and Egloge, as was customary ; s.50 ; Tac. Dial. 29.
uerum Claudio imperium adepto

Nero was three years and one month old at the time of Claudius’ ac-
cession in January 41. His father was by this time dead, so that the legal
position of Nero assumes some importance. Since Nero was impubes the law
required that a tutor be appointed for him; Gaius 7nstit. 1.189. Apparently
Domitius had made no provision for this in his will and since there were no
remaining agnati to assume the role the legal alternative was for the urban
praetor to appoint a tutor in accordance with the /ex Atilia ; Gaius Instit.
1.185 ; cf. 1.144 ; 155-7. The man most probably appointed was Asconius
Labeo, quo tutore usus erat (Nero) ; Tac. Ann. 13.10.1. Nothing more is
known of Asconius, though Syme, AJP 77 (1956), 269, argues from his
name that he originated from Patavium. The most plausible time for the ap-
pointment should be soon after Domitius’ death, perhaps in early 41. The
majority view, however, holds that Asconius became Nero's tutor only upon
the death of Crispus Passienus, Nero's stepfather, which belongs perhaps to
44 (below, 51) ; see Furneaux, ad Tac. /.c. ; Henderson, 24 ; Hohl, 350 ;
Parker, AJP 67 (1946), 44 ; Syme, Lc. Passienus as stepfather could not
have held legal authority over Nero, though, and there is no sound reason
why Asconius’ position should be dated so late, on the assumption that the
law was not left in abeyance after the death of Domitius.
For the legal aspects of guardianship see F. Schulz. Classical Roman Law
(1951), 162ff; W. W. Buckland, A Text-Book of Roman Law (1966),
142ff.
paternas opes reciperauit

This should mean the full estate of Domitius, not just the original
inheritance ; cf. above, s.6.3.
Crispi Passieni .
C. Sallustius Crispus Passienus is known chiefly from Suetonius’ uita
Passieni Crispi ; cf. Schol. Iuuen. 4.81. An orator of great wealth he at-
tained the high distinction of a second consulship in 44 ; Suet. /.c. ; Plin.
NH 16.242 , Mart. 10.2.10 ; Quint. 10.1.24 ; Dio 60.23.1.
His first wife was Domitia, the sister of Cn. Domitius and Domitia
Lepida, whom he divorced to marry Agrippina on her return from exile;
Suet. /.c. ; Plin. Lc. ; Quint. 6.1.50 ; 3.74 ; cf. PIR? D 171. His death, cer-
tainly before 48 when Agrippina was free to marry Claudius, might well
have occurred in the year of his second consulship since a suffect appears as
early as May in the Fasti for that year; Smallwood, Documents, 3 ; cf.
Geer, art. cit., 62. Rumour had it that Agrippina was responsible for his
death ; Suet. ic. PIR! P 109; AE 1924, no. 72.
uitrici sui hereditate ditatus est

Nero was apparently named as coheir with Agrippina in Passienus' will ;
Suet. Jc
6.4 gratia quidem et potentia reuocatae restitutaeque matris

An amnesty declared by Claudius in 41 for those unjustly exiled under
Caligula allowed Agrippina to return to Rome and to have her property
restored ; Dio 60.4.1. Apart from her marriage to Passienus little is heard of
Agrippina until 47. Passienus, however, had not been her first choice as
new husband. After the death of Domitius she had attempted without suc-
cess an alliance with the future emperor Galba (on whom at this date, RE
s.v. Suipicius Galba' col. 777) despite the fact that he was already married ;
Suet. Gaíb. 5.1. For her escape from the machinations of Messalina in 47,
Tac. Ann. 11.12.
ut emanaret in uulgus missos a Messalina uxore Claudi[i], qui eum me-

ridiantem, quasi Britannici aemulum, strangularent. additum fabulae * ad
eosdem dracone e puluino se proferente conterritos refugisse. quae fabula
exorta est deprensis in lecto eius circum ceruicalia serpentis exuuiis
Cf. Tac. Ann. 11.11.6 ; Dio 61.2.4 for similar material, with Heinz, Das
Bild, 14. Tacitus reports the belief that serpents watched over Nero as a
child, the result, according to Nero himself, of the discovery of a single
snake in his bedroom. Dio embroiders the story of the finding of the snake's
skin around Nero's neck with a prophecy of future greatness.
The references to the snake have been variously interpreted as suggesting
"an atmosphere of Oriental royalty and barbaric myth," B. Walker, The
‘Annals’ of Tacitus (1952), 80 n.1, or as a reference to the personification
of the genius of a person, Furneaux ad Tac. /.c. The greater likelihood is
that it represents genuine frictions in the period 41-7 between Messalina
and Agrippina concerning the succession to Claudius in spite of the ages of
Nero and Britannicus. For a sketch of the rivalries between Messalina and
Agrippina, Morford, art. cit.. 57. For examples of similar anecdotes about
snakes and the notions of the snake as a protective force, cf. Plut. Tib. Gr.
|; HA Sev. 1.10, and see R. MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order
(1966), 145f; 322 n.22 with bibliography.
Some idea of the effect of this story on popular opinion may be seen in
the fact that the protective snake and Nero appeared as an artistic motif ; cf.
Babelon. art.cit., 145, "Un enfant est représenté à demi-nu et couché, sur
un sarcophage du Musée des Thermes. Il est agé d'une douzaine d'années et
tient un cuf sur lequel est lové un serpent. Son bras droit est orné d'un
bracelet'.
For Valeria Messalina, Claudius’ wife at his accession, RE s.v. Valerius’
no. 403, and for Britannicus her son, P/R? C 820 ; his date of birth was
probably 13th February, 41.
meridiantem
Cf. Plin. Epp. 3.5.11 ; 7.4.4 ; 9.36.3 for the Roman siesta, with Sher-
win-White, Pliny, 436.
Britannici aemulum
The struggle for the succession is not illustrated from the appearance of
sestertii depicting Britannicus ; the issue belongs to Titus' reign and was
commemorative ; H. Mattingly, Num. Chron? 10 (1930), 330ff.
7.1 Tener adhuc necdum matura pueritia circensibus ludis Troiam con-
stantissime fauorabiliterque lusit
The Troiae ludus was held during the circenses ludi which formed part of
the Secular Games celebrated by Claudius in 47 when Nero was nine years
old ; Tac. Ann. 11.11.5. The game consisted of mock military exercises per-
formed by the sons of noble families. [ts origin under the Principate was
ascribed to Ascanius who allegedly brought it to Alba Longa from Troy, but
purely Etruscan or Italian roots have been discovered for the custom. See
Suet. Aug. 43; Virg. Aen. 5.54ff ; Sen. Troiad. 781 ; DS s.v. "Trojae
ludus' ; Weinstock, DJ, 88f. It is possible on this occasion that the two
sides, the turmae minorum and maiorum were led respectively by Nero and
Britannicus ; cf. Suet. /u/. 39.2 ; Tib. 6.4 ; Furneaux ad Tac. /.c. Tacitus,
L.c., notes ominously the popular enthusiasm for Nero at the expense of
Britannicus.
undecimo aetatis anno a Claudio adoptatus est

Suetonius is wrong here on chronology. From the more reliable version
of Tacitus, Ann. 12.25-6 ; cf. Dio 60.33.2?, it is clear that the adoption be-
longs to 50. The exact date, 25th February, is supplied by later com-
memorative references in the AFA (Smallwood, Documents, nos. 20, 21).
Nero's age, therefore, at the time of the adoption by Claudius was twelve
years and two months. Cf. also Jos. Amt. 20.150. There is no reason,
however, to assume a constant margin of chronological error in ss.7.1-2, as
Bardon, op. cit., 193. Suetonius' implied date for the beginning of Seneca's
tutorship is correct, below, 56, while he offers no date at all for Nero's
tirocinium, below, 58.
In law adoption could be carried out by two processes: adoptio per
praetorem, which involved a fictitious sale of the adoptee by the real father
before the magistrate, or else adrogatio per populum, which required the
passage of a law before the comitia centuriata ; cf. Cic. De Leg. Agr.
2.12.31; Aul. Gell. VA 5.19.1-2. On various counts neither of these regular
processes seems to have fitted Nero's case. His father was no longer alive to
participate in adoptio, and for adrogatio the adoptee was supposed to be
pubes, which Nero was not, and not a pupillus, which he was under the
authority of Asconius Labeo (above, 50f). The fact that Claudius already
had children of his own will have been a further matter for scrutiny by the
pontiffs deciding the viability of the transaction ; cf. Gaius /nstit. 1.98-
107 ; Aul. Gell. fe.
These anomalies were noticed by Geer, art. cit., 63, and by A. May, Rev.
droit fr. etr. 23 (1944), 101ff. Geer suggested resolution by proposing a
form of adoption by edict, as in the case soon after of Galba and Piso ; Tac.
Hist. 1.15 ; Suet. Galb. 17. Pointing out that adrogatio was not valid if the
adoptor already had children, May suggested that Claudius used his position
as pontifex maximus to secure dispensation from this technicality. Both
theories are improbable. The analogy with Galba and Piso is fallacious since
that adoption was carried out in a crisis after Piso had already been named
in Galba's will as his son. More importantly, both Geer and May un-
derestimated the importance of the /ex by which Nero's adoption was enac-
ted, and which is mentioned specifically at Tac. Ana. 12.26.1, rogataque lex
qua in familiam Claudiam et nomen Neronis transiret. Moreover, Agrippina
later claimed, sperni quippe adoptionem, quaeque censuerint patres, iusserit
populus, intra penatis abrogari ; Tac. Ann. 12.41.7. From these texts it is
indisputable that a law was passed by the comitia after a senatus consultum
had sanctioned the adoption. May's attempt to show that quaeque cen-
suerint patres does not refer to an sc. is not convincing. This means that
technically it was a form of adrogatio by which the act of adoption was
carried out, though the full legal requirements cannot have been fulfilled.
On the legal aspects of adoption see Buckland, op. ciz., 121tf ; Schulz, op.
cit., 144ff.
Nero's adoption has particular importance in that it meant not simply the
provision of an heir to a private estate but of a potential successor as prin-
ceps to Claudius ; cf. Tac. Ann. 11.11.5, L. Domitius adoptione mox in im-
perium et cognomentum Neronis adscitus. in 50 Claudius was aged fifty-
nine. Physical weakness had always been a problem, and for this if no other
reason arrangements for the succession could have been a priority in his
thinking at that time. If a successor were needed quickly, Nero was more
suitable than Britannicus on grounds of age. Hence, the dispensation from
the statutory requirements of the law was probably gained for the practical
political advantage it brought. Claudius' action was not so much the result
of pressure brought by Agrippina, as a recognition of the constitutional in-
terest. On Agrippina see the sensible remarks of V. M. Scramuzza, The Em-
peror Claudius (1942), 91ff.
The adoption in itself, however, did not mark out Nero officially as heir
to the throne, nor did it mean the automatic supersession of Britannicus.
Contra, Meise, op. cit., 176ff, overestimating the constitutional significance
of the adoption. There were after all no rules for the appointment of a suc-
cessor (cf. J. Béranger, REL 17 [1939], 187), hence the tradition that Nero
supplanted Britannicus, e.g., Dio 61.1.1 ; but at the time of the adoption
Britannicus was hardly old enough to receive grants of imperium or
tribunicia potestas. And Nero's grant of proconsulare imperium extra ur-
AN HISTORICAL. COMMENTARY 55
bem in $1 did not make him Claudius’ equal ; Tac. Ann. 12.41.2 ; M. Ham-
mond, The Augustan Principate (1933), 76. The Tacitean evidence which is
taken to show an eclipse of Britannicus is post-euentum and partial ; thus
not valid evidence for Claudius’ own attitude. At Ann. 12.69.5, testamen-
tum tamen haud recitatum, ne antepositus filio priulgnus ... animos uulgi
turbaret, antepositus causes difficulty. It could refer to an action by
Claudius, but was considered by Ch. Josserand as "une allusion à la
préférence exprimée..par le sénat lors de l'élection" ; Musée Belge 34
(1930-32), 290. Josserand's view was too extreme because he did not con-
sider what the position of Nero would have been or meant were Britannicus
to become princeps, but he was correct to believe that Britannicus received
important mention in Claudius’ will. An alternative understanding of an-
tepositus is to regard it as an anachronistic usage of Tacitus. It refers
neither to Claudius nor to the senate but rather to the fact of Britannicus"
supersession by Nero as Tacitus looked back and understood it. This would
also account for Ann. 12.25.3, Domitium filio anteponit (sc. Claudius). A
significant point is that neither in 50 nor in 54 at Claudius’ death were
there any substantial indications of popular disapproval of the public
grooming or succession of Nero. And that did not depend on the sup-
pression of Claudius’ will alone; Tac. Ann. 12.69.5 ; Dio 61.1.2. No
weight can be attached to the recognition of Nero in P. Oxy. 1021 from
Egypt (Smallwood, Documents, no. 47), ó ó& tik olxouuévy; xai
npoodoxnleics xai tAniobeic avtoxpatwp dnodééeixtar. This belongs to 17th
November, 54, and reflects the de facto situation of Nero's accession.
There were, as Pallas argued in 50, Tac. Ann. 12.25, precedents within
the imperial family for the provision of more than one heir, or a division of
power. Note especially, Tac. Ann. 12.25.2, se quoque accingeret iuuene par-
tem curarum capessituro. The existence of respective groups of supporters
for Britannicus and Nero separately is immaterial to the point that in 50
Claudius' own intention may have been to provide for a Doppelprinzipat ;
cf. Babelon, art. cit., 138; E. Kornemann, Doppelprinzipat und Reichs-
tellung im Imperium Romanum (1930), 55f. The implications of Suet.
Claud. 43-44.1 ; cf. Dio 60.34.1 ; BMC I clix, are that Britannicus was not
to be neglected in public life and the suppression of Claudius' will in 54
further makes it clear that its contents were not to the liking of the new
dispensation. "Britannicus wird in dem Testament neben Nero zum Haup-
tereben eingesetz" ; D. Timpe, Untersuchungen zur Kontinuitát des frühen
Prinzipat (1962), 104. The description of Claudius' will by Sutherland,
Coinage, 149, as a " deliberate subordination of Britannicus' claims to those
of Nero" unhesitatingly follows Tacitus, which is not justifiable here. How
would Tacitus have known? Finally, after the adoption there are signs of
equal tribute to Britannicus and Nero; cf. /LS 220. This does not suggest,
as far as Claudius was concerned, that there was any thought of overlooking
the public career of Britannicus.
Annaeoque Senecae
L. Annaeus Seneca, the philosopher, P/R? A 617. His tutorship of Nero
began in 49, Tac. Ann. 12.8.3; 14.53.2, which made Nero eleven years old
assuming the appointment was made before 15th December — probable
because of Seneca's praetorship in the same year. Of his life before 49,
however, surprisingly little is known. He was born at Corduba, the son of
the rhetor Seneca, about the beginning of the first century, spent a con-
siderable period of his early life in Rome where he was looked after by an
aunt and received his education. He visited Egypt, where the aunt's
husband was praefectus, about 31, and through her influence held the
quaestorship, seemingly late. By 39 he had fallen under the suspicions of
Caligula and two years later a charge of adultery with Julia Livilla secured
his exile to Corsica. Mart. 1.71 ; Sen. Ad Helu. 19.2.4-7 ; Dio 59.19.7 ;
60.8.5; 61.10.1 ; cf. PIR Lc.
Given the interval of at least ten years between the quaestorship and
praetorship, Seneca's slow advancement in the senatorial cursus has been
attributed to the ill fortunes, from 39 onwards, of a political group com-
posed of former adherents of Tiberius’ minister Sejanus with which Seneca
was associated. Moreover, his restoration from exile, the work of Agrippina,
Tac. Ann. 12.8.3, and subsequent prominence from 49 on become more
comprehensible once a political association of longstanding with Agrippina
is allowed through the connection of both with this clique ; see Stewart, AJP
74 (1953), 70ff, and note Tac. Ann. 12.8.3, Seneca fidus in Agrippinam
memoria beneficii... credebatur. Cf. Syme, Tacitus, 536 ; 590.
iam tunc senatori

Because of the quaestorship, above. There is no need to delay the com-
mencement of Seneca's tutorial duties until 50 to accomodate this passage
as proposed by Bardon, op. cit, 162. The evidence from Tacitus is con-
clusive ; above, $3. Suetonius in fact reverses the order of events ; the adop-
tion belongs to 50, Seneca's appointment to 49.
in disciplinam traditus
Cf. Dio 60.32.3. Seneca was to be responsible for the 'secondary
education' of Nero, his eminence in letters being his main qualification ; cf.
Tac. Ann. 12.8.3. H.-1. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity (1964),

359, uses s.7.] to show that eleven or twelve was the normal age for a child
to go on to the grammaticus. But Seneca must also have fulfilled the duties
of the rhetor when Nero was in his late teens. Cf. below, 285f.
ferunt Senecam proxima nocte uisum sibi per quietem C. Caesari praecipere,
et fidem somnio Nero breui fecit prodita immanitate naturae quibus primum
potuit experimentis
The phrase immanitas naturae is as firm a statement as could be hoped
for of Suetonius' belief in the nature of Nero's personality ; cf. above, 14.
The tendentious comparison with Caligula in this anecdote is plainly con-
sistent with this, and condemnatory. The examples of immanitas which
follow date respectively from 51 and 53. Hence, breui and primum potuit
are of little value here. Suetonius pays no attention to chronology.
namque Britannicum fratrem, quod se post adoptionem A< h> enobarbum

ex consuetudine salutasset, ut subditiuum apud patrem arguere conatus est
Cf. Tac. Ann. 12.41.6 ; ps.-Sen. Octau. 249. For the adoption, supposed-
ly the first into the Claudian family, Tac. Ann. 12.25 ; Suet. Claud. 39.2,
see above, 53ff. After 50 Nero's full name was Nero Claudius Caesar
Drusus Germanicus (cf., for instance, Smallwood, Documents, nos. 100
[iv] ; 104 [aD. Cf. Suet. Tib. 1.2. for the meaning of ‘Nero,’ Sabine in
origin ; Syme, Historia 7 (1958), 174.
Tacitus places this incident under 51, a considerable interval, therefore,
after the adoption. In view of this and the presumable familiarity with
Nero's new nomenclature it brought, it is doubtful if much weight shouid be
attached to the phrase ex consuetudine. Whether the episode is illustrative
of personal feelings or not, it is of some significance for the underlying
political struggle for the succession. Messalina's death in 48 did not mean
the disappearance of all who preferred Britannicus as the rightful heir to
Claudius ; cf. Tac. Ann. 12.41 ; 69. But Suetonius is interested only in the
external superficialities of the contest. Cf. Heinz, Das Bild, 17. For the
contrast between the court situation and the public image of Nero and
Britannicus see C/L VI 922 (= Smallwood, Documents, no. 108). And on
the political background in general see CAH X 6721T ; Warmington, 16ff.
amitam auiem Lepidam ream testimonio coram afflixit gratificans matri, a

qua rea premebatur
Cf. Tac. Ann. 12.64-5 for the details of Lepida's trial, which took place
in 53. The charges were twofold, the casting of magic spells against the wife
of the emperor (for similar allegations associated with Agrippina, Tac. Ann.
12.22 ; 59), and responsibility for riots in Calabria caused by ranchhands.
Nero's participation in the trial is not recorded by Tacitus, and the nature of
the evidence given by him unknown.
The trial was the climax of a struggle between Lepida and Agrippina for
influence both at court and over Nero ; cf. Tac. Ann. 12.64-6 ; above, 43f ;
49f. Lepida was by no means “a minor rival" of Agrippina (Walker, op.cit.,
23), but in many respects her equal, Tac. Amn. 12.64.5. See Garnsey, Social
Status, 25.
7.2 Deductus in forum tiro

A young man intending to embark upon a public career attached himself
to a leading orator of the day in order to acquire oratorical skills through
observation ; Tac. Dial. 34. This practice, the tirocinium fori, of which
Cicero's attachment to the Scaevolae is a celebrated example, cf. Cic. Brut.
306 ; De Leg. 1.13, coincided with assumption of the toga uirilis, and in
the early Principate tirocinium became a virtual synonym for the coming of
age ceremony ; cf. Sen. Epp. Moral. 4.2, cum praetexta posita sumpsisti
uirilem togam et in forum deductus es. For other imperial tirocinia, cf. Suet.
Aug. 26.2; Tib. 14.
Nero took the toga uirilis about 4th March, 51 ; Tac. Ann. 12.41.1 ; Dio
60.33.2c ; cf. Heinz, Das Bild, 16 ; AFA for 59 (= Smallwood, Documents,
no. 21) : ob comitia consularia and ob pontificatum, on which see Henzen,
66f. Claudius was consul, and Nero was aged thirteen years and two mon-
ths at the time. This was a little younger than the usual age of fourteen (cf.
RG 14.1), but this fact cannot be turned into an argument that Nero was
really fourteen when he assumed the toga uirilis and so was born in 36. In
so doing Sumner, Latomus 26 (1967), 417f, appeals to the precedent of the
consulships designated for C. and L. Caesar in their twentieth year when
they were fifteen, as Nero in 51 was also made consul designate for his
twentieth year at his coming of age ; RG /.c. ; Tac. Ann. 12.41.2. This can
be retained constitutionally but not chronologically. Even if Nero were
fourteen in 51 he would still have been younger than the Caesars at the
time of their designation, so there is no real argument here. Moreover,
Sumner misses Henzen's correlation (above) between the entry in the AFA
for 59 and Nero's designate consulship in 51, so is unaware of the likely
exact date for the taking of the toga uirilis. Tac. Ann. 12.41.1, uirilis toga
Neroni maturata, is in itself sufficiently specific to make Nero's unusual age
in 51 acceptable and does not require embellishment ; contra, Sumner, art.
cit., 417.
In addition to the designate consulship the senate decreed at Nero's

coming of age that he should also receive a grant of proconsular imperium
outside the city (above, 54f) and the title princeps iuuentutis ; Tac. Ann.
12.41.2. For the significance of the latter title, which quickly appeared on
the coinage, BMC 1 176ff, as a designation of a successor see Kornemann,
op. cit., 29f. By senatorial decree Nero further became a supernumary mem-
ber of the major priestly colleges. This is not recorded by the literary sour-
ces but is known from the coinage ; sacerdos cooptatus in omnia collegia
supra numerum ex sc ; BMC | clivf ; 177 ; cf. also /LS 5025 ( = Smallwood,
Documents, no. 132 [b]. The conferment of these honours was of fun-
damental importance for Nero's preparation for public life. Britannicus,
however, was still too young to be given similar privileges. See above, 54ff.
populo congiarium, militi donatiuum proposuit

Cf. Tac. Ann. 12.41.3. The largesse was given by Claudius in 51 to mark
Nero's coming of age. Cf. BMC I cliv. The amounts of the donations are
unknown. For the possible assistance of Q. Veranius, cos. 49, in the
distribution of the congiarium see below, 83.
indictaque decursione praetorianis scutum sua manu praetulit

The parade was commemorated on the coinage ; Mattingly describes the
decursio type as “complimentary to the praetorian guard", BMC J clxxviii ;
cf. 226ff ; 262. Such parades were completely honorific. The entry in DS,
s.v. 'decursio,' refers to decursiones which were given as part of the cir-
censes, headed by the principes iuuentutis. The parade in 51 then might
have been part of the /udicrum circensium recorded at Tac. Ann. 12.41.4, at
which both Nero and Britannicus appeared, Britannicus in praetexta, Nero
triumphali ueste.
exin patri gratias in senatu egit

This seems akin to the practice of rendering thanks to the princeps for the
award of a consulship which is more commonly attested in the Flavio-
Trajanic period ; cf. Plin. Pan. ; Epp. 2.1.4 ; 3.18.1. See, briefly, G. Ken-
nedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World (1972), 429. For examples
of such speeches by designati, Plin. Epp. 6.27.1-2 ; Tac. Hist. 2.71.
apud eundem consulem

The consulship of Claudius meant should be that of 51 ; the previous of-
fice, in 47, is much too early for the date of the speeches which follow. For
the offices, Degrassi, Fasti, s.aa. ; Smallwood, Documents, 3f. Tacitus,

however, puts Nero's speeches in 53 ; Ann. 12.58. The disparity could be
due to variant source traditions, but Ph. Fabia suggested that Suetonius
confused the date of the three speeches below with that of the speech to
Claudius above; Rev. de Phil. 20 (1896), 135. This makes sense.
pro Bononiensibus Latine, pro Rhodis atque Iliensibus Graece uerba fecit
Cf. Tac. Ann. 12.58, according to which the reason for Nero's speech-
making was to allow him an opportunity to display his oratorical
capabilities (12.58.1). To judge from later examples, it is probable that the
speeches were composed by Seneca; cf. Tac. Ann. 13.3.2; 14.11.4.
Bononia, a colony in Cisalpine Gaul astride the Via Aemilia, had been
ravaged by fire and as a result of Nero's speech received HS10m. in com-
pensation ; Tac. Ann. 12.58.2. The delivery of the speech by Nero was not
fortuitous ; the Antonii were patrons of Bononia ; cf. Suet. Aug. 17.2. The
rebuilding of a bath in the city is recorded at CJL X1 720 and the ‘Augustus
Germanicus' mentioned in the inscription could be Nero himself. if so, the
inscription in itself is not evidence of a date after 54 for the speech as
thought by Geer, art. cít., 64, but indicates only that the repairs were com-
pleted after Nero's accession.
The object of the Rhodian speech was to gain for Rhodes a restoration of
freedom (cf. Dio 60.24.4) which was indeed granted by Claudius ; Tac.
Ann. 12.58.2 ; Suet. Claud. 25.3. But it was the patronage of Nero which
was remembered; cf. Anth. Pal. 9.178. For the decree honouring the
Rhodian envoys who had secured the restoration of freedom and Nero's
ratification of it in 54 see /GRR IV 1123; 1124 ( Smallwood, Docu-
ments, nos. 412 [a], [bD. For Nero's special treatment of Rhodes, Dio
Chrysos. Orat. 31.148-50, and Fabia, art. cit. ; cf. Magie, RRAM, 548 ;
1406f.
The outcome of the speech on behalf of Ilium was that its inhabitants
omni publico munere soluerentur ; Tac. Ann. 12.58.1 ; cf. Suet. Claud.
25.3; IGRR IV 208-9 (=Smallwood, Documents, no. 101). A fourth
speech, not recorded by Suetonius, secured for Apamea a remission of
taxation. because of a recent earthquake ; Tac. Ann. 12.58.2.
The public attention brought by the Rhodian speech to Nero suggested to
Fabia, art. cir., 131, that it was part of Agrippina's policy of engineering
the supersession of Britannicus. This consideration could apply to all the
speeches, though it should not be unusual that Nero was given such
preparatory responsibilities at this stage of his life.
praefectus urbi sacro Latinarum

The office of praefectus urbi feriarum Latinarum was a survival from the
early Republican praefectura urbis. Its function was to supervise the city
during the celebration of the feriae Latinae, an ancient festival heid in
honour of Jupiter Latiaris on the Alban hill by the communities of Latium ;
cf. Tac. Ann. 6.11; Plin. NH 3.69; DS s.v. Feriae Latinae." Roman
magistrates were required to attend the festival, thus leaving the city unat-
tended ; Liv. 25.12.2 ; 44.21.3. For the continuation of the appointment
under the Principate, not to be confused with the great senatorial praefec-
tura urbis organised by Augustus, cf. Tac. Lc, duratque simulacrum,
quoties ob ferias Latinas praeficitur qui consulare munus usurpet. Cf.
Mommsen, DPR, II 345f.
The date of Nero's tenure of this position cannot be fixed with certainty.
The feriae latinae was a movable festival, the date of celebration being laid
down by the consuls of the year ; cf. Cic. Ad Fam. 8.6.3. But the year ap-
pears to be that of the four speeches, above, 60, 53 on the Tacitean
chronology, but perhaps 51 ; cf. Henderson, 39. Geer, art.cit., assigned the
office to April or May, 53, but on no evidence. Hohl, 354, suggested the
year 52, for no apparent reason.
celeberrimis patronis non tralaticias, ut assolet, et breuis, sed maximas

plurimasque postulationes certatim ingerentibus, quamuis interdictum a
Claudio esset
This text makes it clear that the praefectus did not normally exercise
jurisdiction over important items. When the office was held in 25 by
Tiberius’ son Drusus a backlogue of pending criminal prosecutions resulted
in application to him to hear one particular case, but this was soon
quashed ; Tac. Ann. 4.36. This was now extended by Claudius to a ban, but
apparently without success.
ut assolet
If this is an accurate insertion it means that the praefectura was not a
purely honorific office, as stated by Furneaux ad Tac. /.c. Both Drusus and
Nero conducted business of some kind.
nec multo post duxit uxorem Octauiam

Cf. Tac. Ann. 12.58.1, where the date of the wedding is 53 ; cf. Dio
60.35.2c ; 61.33.11. In Tacitus’ version the marriage precedes the four
speeches (above, 60) so that mec multo post is likely to be inaccurate again,
unless Tacitus has inverted the order of events for emphasis.
For Octavia, the daughter of Claudius and Messalina, P/R? C 1110. To

avoid a marriage between brother and sister Octavia was adopted before the
wedding into another family; Dio 60.33.2c. The betrothal, arranged by
Agrippina and Seneca, had been made in 49 shortly after Agrippina's return
from exile; Tac. Ann. 12.9; Dio 60.5.7.
In political terms the marriage was of great significance since it united
the two halves of the dynasty and eliminated Octavia as a potential
marriage partner for supporters of Britannicus who might have attempted to
stall the succession of Nero; cf. Meise, op. cit., 172ff, and note the com-
ment of Béranger, REL 17 (1939), 174, "la qualité de proche parent
justifiait une prétention au pouvoir impérial".
ediditque pro Claudi salute circenses et uenationem

At the time of Nero's wedding to Octavia Dio, 60.33.9-11, mentions a
horse race promised by Nero and held to mark the recovery of Claudius
from illness. This should correspond with Suetonius’ pro Claudi salute,
though Dio is less specific on the form of the celebration, patoavros dé tot
KAavótou thy innoópouiav 6 Népuv peyadonpenwe énerédece. For Claudius’
illness cf. also Suet. Claud. 31.
Section 8: The Accession of Nero
The narrative of the accession is brief but contains one or two interesting
details. Suetonius, however, is not interested in the sort of constitutional or
chronological material which would allow a full reconstruction of the events
of October, 54, but not much more is to be derived from Tacitus here
either. This situation perhaps is a reflection of the pure formality of Nero’s
accession once the support of the military had been secured.
General Bibliography : In addition to works cited on 45, see also J.
Béranger, L'Hérédité du principat in REL 17 (1939), 171ff ; D. Timpe, Un-
tersuchungen zur Kontinuitat des frühen Prinzipats (1962), 941f ; Meise, op.
cit., 176ff. B. Parsi, Désignation et investiture de l'empereur romain (1963),
146.
8. Septemdecim natus annos

Nero was sixteen years and ten months on 13th October, 54, the date of
his accession; cf. below, and above, 45f.
ut de Claudio palam factum est

That is, the news of Claudius' death, which fell on 13th October 54 ;
Suet. Claud. 45 ; Dio 60.34.3 ; Sen. Apoc. 1.1 ; 2.2. See further, 195f. The
death probably occurred in the early hours of the morning but was not an-
nounced until the final preparations for the succession had been made;
Suet. /.c. ; Tac. Ann. 12.68. The later time of death given in the Apocolocyn-
tosis 2.2 ; 4 represents the ‘official’ version of events which misrepresented
the exact time of Claudius’ death, and which Seneca presumably was con-
tent to condone and propagate. The obscurity surrounding Claudius' death
is best appreciated from Tacitus, who never actually mentions the fact that
Claudius died.
inter horam sextam septimamque

Cf. Tac. Ann. 12.69.1, medio diei. The Roman day was divided from
sunrise to sunset into twelve hours. The seventh always began at noon, the
others according to the varying times of dawn and dusk throughout the
year. [t has been calculated that on 13th October, 54, the sixth hour began
a little after 11.00 a.m. Nero's appearance on the Palatine, therefore (below,
63f) should have fallen towards noon. See L. Lesuisse, Suétone et l'aspect
juridique de l'avénement de Néron in LEC 29 (1961), 389ff.
processit ad excubitores
Cf. Tac. Ann. 12.69.1, cohortem quae more militiae excubiis adest. The
excubitores were a detachment of praetorians detailed for palace duty; cf.
Tac. Hist. 1.24 ; 29 ; Suet. Otho 4.6 ; RE VI s.v. ‘excubitores.” When Nero
emerged from the palace after Claudius' death he was accompanied by the
praetorian prefect, Afranius Burrus (on whom see 217f) military tribunes,
and freedmen ; Tac. Amn. 12.69; Jos. Ani. 20.152.
cum ob totius diei diritatem non aliud auspicandi tempus accommodatius

uideretur
Cf. Tac. Ann. 12.68.3. Agrippina waited for the tempus prosperum to be
announced by Chaldaean astrologers before allowing Nero to appear
publicly. Cf. Tiberius’ attention to the astrologer Thrasyllus ; Tac. Ann.
6.20 ; Suet. Tib. 62.3; Dio 55.11.2f.
proque Palati gradibus imperator. consalutatus

Cf. Tac. Ann. 12.69.1, monente praefecto faustis uocibus exceptus. This
reception preceded Nero's general acceptance by the praetorians (below,
64) ; cf. Suet. Claud. 10, where Claudius is hailed by a private soldier be-
fore his acceptance by the guard as a whole. Tacitus says that Nero was also
acclaimed as imperator when he reached the castra praetoria, Ann 12.69.3,
but these salutations have nothing to do with the assumption of the title /m-
perator, for which see 91. Nero's acceptance by the military illustrates
Agrippina's success in preparing for a smooth transition of power from
Claudius to Nero, but see below, 65.
lectica
Cf. Tac. Ann. 12.69.1, inditur lecticae.
in castra et inde raptim appellatis militibus in curiam delatus est

Cf. Tac. Ann. 12.69.3 ; Dio 61.3.1. Nero dated his dies imperii from the
acclamation of the troops here ; see 69. An address, composed by Seneca,
was given by Nero in which he promised a donative of fifteen thousand
sesterces a man, equal to that given by Claudius at his accession ; cf. Suet.
Claud. 10. It is obvious, but nonetheless important, that military support
for the new ruler was essential before any approach to the senate could be
made for constitutional ratification of the de facto position ; cf. Timpe, op.
cit., 100f.
raptim
The word implies haste in the proceedings in the praetorian camp,
perhaps a reflection of the desire to gain the security of acceptance by the
senate as quickly as possible. Britannicus was safely under the watch of
Agrippina in the palace, but the possibility of demonstrations on his behalf
was not thereby automatically eliminated ; Tac. Ann. 12.68.2 ; cf. 69.5.
discessitque iam uesperi

Lesuisse, art.cit., 390, estimated the time necessary for the journey from
the Palatine to the praetorian camp and back to be at least two hours and
calculated that the senatorial session lasted approximately from 2.00 p.m.
until 6.00 p.m., the time evening would fail in October. According to Dio,
61.3.1, the proceedings in the senate began with a speech from Nero which
had again been prepared by Seneca.
ex immensis, quibus cumulabatur, honoribus

The text is vague and Tacitus, Amn. 12.69.3, speaks only of patrum con-
sulta at the meeting of the senate on 13th October, 54. Three possible types
of business are perhaps distinguishabie :
|. On the basis of Dio's statement on the settlement of 23 B.C. and of
arrangements after Nero, it may be assumed that decrees were passed grant-
ing Nero the constitutional powers on which the Principate was based; cf.
Dio 53.32.5; Tac. Hist. 1.47, decernitur Othoni tribunicia potestas et
nomen Augusti et omnes principum honores ; Hist. 4.3, at Romae senatus

cuncta principibus solita Vespasiano decernit. The conferment of the
tribunician power is commemorated in the AFA for 57 on 4th December
(Smallwood, Documents, no. 19), an interval of seven and a half weeks after
the dies imperii. The period has been explained as the interval between the
passing of the senatus consultum bestowing the trib. pot. and its con-
firmation by the comitia ; Mommsen, DPR, V 150. But this really is a very
long period and despite the usual view of the smooth transition of power it
might be wondered if in fact there was some difficulty in establishing
general acceptance of the new régime. Admittedly ratification by the comitia
was of little practical importance, but the gesture of ratification did have
symbolic value. [t is possible that the time lapse was dictated by the need
for the “fait accompli" of the succession to lose its initial impact. M. Ham-
mond, MAAR 25 (1957), 26, felt that "the delay had some good
justification" but did not elaborate that opinion. For the vexed question of a
possible change of Nero's tribunician day to 10th December in $9 see M.
Hammond, The Tribunician Day in the Early Empire in MAAM 15 (1938),
23ff ; cf. M. L. Constans, CRAI (1912), 385ff; H. Mattingly, JRS 20
(1930), 78ff; T. B. Mitford, BSA 42 (1947), 220ff.
Nero was already in possession of a proconsulare imperium extra urbem,
Tac. Ann. 12.41.2 (above, 54f), which was probably now modified to
become the usual imperium held by the princeps ; cf. Dio 53.32.5. There is
certainly an impression from Suetonius’ text of a block vote of imperial
powers carried through in one session. In the way that Vespasian later
received the accumulated privileges of his predecessors so now presumably
something similar was done for Nero.
2. Of the component parts of the imperial nomenclature which the senate
could confer probably no more than one was received by Nero at this
meeting. The title ‘Augustus’ appears regularly on inscriptions from 54 on,
but the praenomen imperatoris was not taken by Nero until 66 (below, 91).
On nomenclature in general see M. Hammond, /mperial Elements in the
Formula of the Roman Emperors in the first Two and a Half Centuries of the
Empire in MAAR 25 (1957), 19ff.
The AFA for 69 (ILS 241) show that Otho was invested with priesthoods
and the office of pontifex maximus shortly after his accession, but in Nero's
case all the major priesthoods were already held ; above, 59, and no con-
firmatory date appears in the AFA for the bestowal of the chief office which
may not have been held until 55/6 ; cf. BMC 1 200 n.1; 201ff. In all
likelihood, therefore, religious business did not occupy the senate's attention
on this occasion.
3. [n a broad sense honores can include honours of the type described at

Iul. 76.1 and Tib. 26.1, statues, cult priesthoods and the like. Examples of
these at Nero's accession, however, are not forthcoming. Dio, 61.3.1,
records a motion to copy a speech of Nero on a silver tablet and to read it
annually, but the date of this speech is not clear. No other proposals are at-
tested until the end of the year after successes in the East ; Tac. Ann. 13.8 ;
10. Agrippina, however, was honoured in this way, if not on the day of the
accession, then certainly soon afterwards ; Tac. Ann. 13.2.5, propalam
iamen omnes in eam honores cumulabantur. It is possible, finally, that at
this time the senate also voted that Claudius be given a public funeral ; see
below, 67.
tantum patris patriae nomine recusato propter aetatem

The proposal that Nero should hold this title at so young an age suggests
that it had now become a stock feature of the imperial apparatus. Of the
Julio-Claudians Tiberius was the only one not to hold it, but there are no
examples of its tenure from the beginning of a reign ; cf. Tac. Ann. 1.72 ;
2.87 ; Suet. Tib. 26 ; Dio 57.8.1 ; 58.12.8 ; 59.3.2 ; AFA for 43/8 (Small-
wood, Documents, no. 13). [t served to represent a father-child relationship
between the emperor and his subjects, Dio 53.18.3, and propriety offered
good grounds for its refusal by Nero. Such considerations, however, were
soon laid aside for the title appears on the coinage the following year ; BMC
I 201 ( 2 Smallwood, Documents, no. 17). For Pliny's similar approval of
Trajan's refusal of the title, quod alii primo statim principatus die ut im-
peratoris et Caesaris receperunt, see Pan. 21.1-2.
Section 9 :
It is only at this stage of the biography that Suetonius reaches his ac-
count of the commendable acta of Nero. This depends here on the demon-
stration of imperial virtues, pietas in s.9, followed by liberalitas, clementia,
and comitas in s.10, which are of prime importance in Suetonian
methodology (see J/-ES 4 (1976), 245ff, with bibliography); cf. E.
Paratore, RCCM | (1959), 332. Sentences one to three concern events
which belong shortly after the accession, the fourth is a development of the
third, and the final sentence is a later example of pietas not connected in
time to the others.
9. Orsus hinc a pietatis ostentatione

The demonstration of pietas towards the previous ruler became a con-
ventional feature of any accession even when, as here, there might be a
reaction against preceding policies or personalities. It assisted the process of

the transference of power. Nero's pietas later gave rise to interpretations of
insincerity, Tac. Ann. 13.4.1 ; Dio 60.35.2, but there is no reason to believe
that ostentatio is anything but literally exact and without any adverse con-
notations ; cf. above, 15 n.14.
apparatissimo funere
lt was decreed by the senate that Claudius be given a funus censorium,
Tac. Ann. 13.2.6 ; 12.69.4 ; cf. Dio 60.35.2, which was particularly fitting
since Claudius had held the censorship himself. Under the Principate this
was the most lavish of all public funerals and was reserved almost ex-
clusively for members of the imperial family ; cf. HA Pert. 15.1 ; Seu. 7.8,
and for an example of a publicum funus for a private citizen, Plin. Epp.
2.1.1 with Sherwin-White, ad /oc. In general see DS s.v. 'funus publicum' ;
J. M. C. Toynbee, Death and Burial in the Roman World (1971), 55ff ; J.
C. Richard, Les Aspects militaires des funérailles impériales in MEFR 78
(1966), 313ff.
laudauit
The contents of the /audatio are known from Tac. Ann. 13.3. There were
three main themes, the antiquity and distinction of the gens Claudia,
Claudius’ personal interest in the liberal arts and the general safety of the
state under his rule, and celebration of his prouidentia and sapientia. Cf.
Heinz, Das Bild, 20f. The last section caused a humourous reaction on the
part of the audience, nemo risui temperare, Ann. 13.3.2, a fact which might
suggest some connection between the tone of the laudation and that of the
Apocolocyntosis, both works being produced by Seneca ; thus also H. MacL
Currie, Ant. Class. 31 (1962), 91ff ; B. M. Marti, AJP 73 (1952), 24ff; cf.
W. H. Alexander, Proceedings and Transactions of the Royal Society of
Canada 37 (1943), 4Sf.
consecrauit
Cf. Tac. Ann. 12.69.4 ; 13.2.6 ; Suet. Claud. 45 ; Dio 60.35.2 ; Eutrop.
7.13.5.
Claudius appears as diuus throughout Nero's reign in the AFA, Small-
wood, Documents, nos. 18, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, and other epigraphic
material shows that Nero used the style diui filius consistently from 54
(e.g., LS 225, 227, 228, 229, etc.). The same title quickly appeared on the
coinage, though soon disappearing, and a special issue was even minted in
honour of the consecration ; BMC I clxxi, 200f ; clxxiii. On the other hand
there are statements by Pliny (Pan. 11.1) and Suetonius (Claud. 45) which
imply a lack of serious respect in Nero's attitude towards the deification.
The destruction of Claudius’ temple, Suet. Vesp. 9.1, is not relevant here,
however, since this resulted from plans to build an aqueduct and the Domus
Aurea ; cf. Platner, Ashby, Topographical Dictionary, 120. Nero's personal
feeling towards Claudius at the accesion may have been far from filial, as
later (cf. s.33.1), but once established in the forms of Roman religion and
officialdom the deification of Claudius was not rescinded, as Suetonius
states elsewhere, Claud. 45. but probably fell into neglect; cf. M. P.
Charlesworth. JRS 27 (1937), 54ff. Note that Claudius does not appear as
diuus in the lex de imperio Vespasiani, ILS 244, and Pliny's phrase, £.c., ut
irrideret, may have been influenced by the tradition which allowed Tacitus
to produce the humourous element in his description of the funeral
laudation, above, 67. For diuus Claudius on the coinage see Sutherland,
Coinage, 154f.
Suetonius conceals what Tacitus makes clear, that consecration could be
granted only by the senate, though doubtless the initiative came from the
palace ; cf. Tac. //.c., caelestesque honores Claudio decernuntur ; decreti et
a senatu ... flamonium Claudiale, ... mox consecratio. The senate in debate,
on the analogy of the Apocolocyntosis, would decide between damnatio
memoriae and consecratio, which was not precisely the sarne as the creation
of a cult though from Tacitus here it seems that the distinction was fine. See
on the procedure for consecratio, Weinstock, DJ, 386ff ; cf. E. Bickermann,
Consecratio in Le Culte des souverains dans l'empire romain, Entretiens sur
l'antiquité classique 19 (1973), 3ff. One result of the senate's activities may
have been the building of the Claudian temple in Britain ; Tac. Ann. 14.31 ;
D. Fishwick. Britannia 3 (1972), 164ff.
The question of personal insincerity on Nero's part at the time of the ac-
cession as regards the deification does not really arise, since the consecra-
tion is likely to have been the work of Agrippina. (One of the preparations
made between Claudius' death and Nero's emergence from the palace?) She
was responsible for the cult after its inauguration and for the building of the
temple to Claudius ; Tac. Ann. 12.69.4 ; Suet. Vesp. 9.1. So she perhaps
realised the importance of an appearance of filial piety too when Nero's
claims to the succession were not wholly beyond jeopardy. Similarly, the
funeral oration was written by Seneca, not by Nero himself. Every detail of
the accession was very carefully stage- managed.
memoriae Domiti[i] patris honores maximos habuit

Tacitus, Ann. 13.10.1, records a request to the senate from Nero for the
erection of a statue of Cn. Domitius, but the context there suggests the end
of 54 rather than the middle of October. The AFA begin to commemorate
Domitius" birthday from 55 on, Smallwood, Documents, nos. 16, 19, 21,
22, but the lack of evidence for 54 conceals whether a similar entry was
made in that year. Even so the date, 11th December, falls at the end of the
year again. There is no reason to believe from the context of the present
passage that other honours were sought for Domitius immediately upon
Nero's arrival to power. The subsequent entry on Antium shows that
Suetonius is not concerned with the immediate accession period alone.
matrí summam omnium rerum priuatarum publicarumque permisit

Agrippina's ascendency was at its greatest during the accession phase, a
fact adequately symbolised by the prominence given her portrait on the
coinage of 54. In the following year her portrait is subordinated to Nero's
before finally disappearing altogether. BMC I clxxi, 200ff ; clxxii, 201 ; see
Sutherland, Coinage, 152ff. Dio, 61.3.2; cf. 61.4.1, is emphatic that
Agrippina was initially responsible for the direction of the new administra-
tion, but ready examples of this are hard to come by. Tacitus, Aan. 13.5,
speaks only of a meeting of the senate on the Palatine for Agrippina's con-
venience, while an attempt to assert her regency at a reception of Armenian
envoys was swiftly aborted through the presence of mind of Seneca. The
deaths of [unius Silanus and Narcissus at the beginning of the reign perhaps
provide better evidence of the backstairs influence of Nero's mother ; cf.
Tac. Ann. 13.1. In general, Momigliano, 708ff ; Henderson, 56f; Hohl,
356f; Warmington, 43.
primo etiam imperii die

The dies imperii was 13th October ; cf. the sacrifices in the AFA on this
day ob imperium, Smallwood, Documents, no. 21 ; above, 64. In calculating
the length of Nero's reign Dio likewise counted from this date, 63.29.3.
signum excubanti tribuno dedit optimam matrem

Cf. Tac. Ann. 13.2.5 ; Suet. Claud. 42.1. The tribune was head of the
palace guard, on which cf. above, 63. To contemporary readers of
Suetonius the phrase optima mater may have seemed ironic in view of
Trajan's celebration as optimus princeps. The appearance of Agrippina's
name on the coinage allowed her almost an ‘official’ title: AGRIPP. AVG.
DIV] CLAVDI NERONIS CAES. MATER; BMC | 200f ( 2» Smallwood, Docu-
ments, nos. 106, 107).
eiusdem saepe lectica per publicum simul uectus est

Cf. Dio 61.3.2; Heinz, Das Bild, 22.
Antium coloniam deduxit

The demonstration of pietas extends from parents to birthplace ; cf.
above, 66. The already existing colony at Antium was supplemented in 60
in order to combat depopulation; Tac. Ama. 14.27.3. Cf. CIL X 6672,
VETER. DEDVCT. ANTI, and Mommsen, C/L X 660. On Antium, RE I s.v.
The following list of Neronian colonies is provided by Kornemann, RE I
s.v. ‘coloniae’ cols. 537f.: Capua, Nuceria, Puteoli, Antium, Tarentum,
Pompeii, Tegeanum, Verona ; the dates of settlement range from 57 to 63.
Several of these sites are Campanian, which should not be a matter of ac-
cident, in view of the economic importance of Puteoli and Ostia, and Nero's
interest in improving communications by inland waterways in this region.
Cf. A. Sogliano, Colonie Neroniane in Rend. Linc.’ 6 (1897), 389ff;
Rostovtzeff, SEHRE?, 162f ; 610, n.25 ; below, 70f ; 100f ; 115ff ; 181f.
ascriptis ueteranis e praetorio

After sixteen years service in the praetorian guard (Tac. Ann. 1.17)
veterans might often retire to take part in the public life of Italian
municipalities ; their wealth could be very attractive. See for example, CIL
II] 3486 ; X 6489, and further M. Durry, Les Cohortes prétoriennes (1938),
302ff; G. R. Watson, The Roman Soldier (1969), 147ff.
additisque per domicilii translationem ditissimis primipilarium

The text implies that veterans who had already once been settled were
uprooted for the new settlement at Antium. The pay of primipili was com-
paratively high, 15,000 denarii in the Augustan period, according to H. M.
D. Parker, The Roman Legions (reprint 1971), 224 ; cf. Brunt, PBSR 18
(1950), 68f ; B. Dobson, Ancient Society 3 (1972), 198 ; and they received
a bonus on retirement ; Dio 55.23.1 ; Suet. Cal. 44.1. For their distinction
in Italian municipal life see for example LS 2081 ; CIL III 3028 ; IX
5839 ; 3044 ; XI 386, and on their equestrian rank cf. S. J. de Laet, Ant.
Class. 9 (1940), 13ff.
ubi et portum operis sumptuosissimi fecit

The colonial date of 60, above, 70, is of no use for determining when the
harbour at Antium was built. But two theories have been expressed on the
purpose of the project. Blake, Roman Construction, 84, believed that it was
associated with the imperial villa at Antium (above, 45) and that it was
AN HISTORICAL. COMMENTARY 7]
primarily for use by Nero. This is possible, but it seems better to make a
connection with Nero's other known interests in waterways; cf. 115ff;
181f. Meiggs, Ostia, 59, suggests that the harbour was intended as a point
of shelter for cargoe ships sailing the west coast of Italy. If so, construction
might have begun shortly before the Puteoli canal project so that shipping
would be safer until the canal was completed, or else after the proposed
canal had been abandoned. In either case, an approximate date for the har-
bour would be about 64. For the archaeological remains, including ware-
houses, see Blake, op. cit., 84f ; plate 13, figs. | and 2. There is no evidence
for the view, RE I col. 2562, that the project at Antium met with little suc-
cess ; sumptuosissimi might even signify that Suetonius had seen the har-
bour for himself. Presumably it was financed by Nero.
10.1 Atque ut certiorem adhuc indolem ostenderet

The emphasis is still on pietas, for which in a different context cf. Tac.
Ann. 13.5.3; s.9.
ostenderet
See above, 15 n.14.
ex Augusti praescripto imperaturum se professus

Cf. Tac. Ann. 13.4.1, consilia sibi et exempla capessendi egregie imperil
memorauit, which might wel! have included mention of Augustus. The oc-
casion in Tacitus is that of Nero's policy speech to the senate in 54 which
reacted against the alleged failings of the Claudian régime and promised the
restoration of an administrative dyarchy. Cf. Dio 59.6.1; 8; Plin. Pan.
66.2 ; Plut. Galb. 15.1. Appeal to the Augustan ideal was not new. Caligula
associated himself with Augustus when delivering Tiberius' funeral oration,
Dio 59.3.8, and Claudius was known to compare himself to Augustus, Tac.
Ann. 12.11.1 ; cf. Suet. Claud. 11.2. Both the appeal and Nero's speech
show the probable influence of Seneca. Augustan precedents are recom-
mended to Nero at De Clem. 1.9.1-12 ; 15.1-16.1. The speech of Augustus
at Apoc. 10.1-11.5 is vigorously anti-Claudian. But in spite of the obvious
attempt to solicit the approval of and to secure a cooperative relationship
with the senate there is no question of a derogation of the powers of the ab-
solute ruler ; cf. De Clem. 1.1.2-4. Cf. Hohl, 356 ; P. Jal, REL 35 (1957),
242ff.
In spite of the element of conventionality, the present text probably
shows that hopes were encouraged at the beginning of the reign for the ex-
pectation of good government, and the statement is repeatedly made by
scholars that for at least a period of five years Nero’s government was effec-
tive and that relations with the senate were harmonious. This in turn is at-
tributed to the management of policy by Seneca and Burrus (though it is
difficult to discover precise examples of effects or measures produced by
Nero’s mentors). For the sake of completeness, however, it needs to be
pointed out that this initial period of promise and success is identified with
Trajan's alleged remark on the quinguennium Neronis, a period of govern-
ment better than any since the time of Augustus ; Aur. Vict. De Caes. 5.2 ;
Anon. Epit. de Caes. 5.2. This has led to much discussion, to which there is
nothing to add except scepticism. The sources for the discussion are late
and there is no way of telling where the original material came from. Most
significantly, the idea of a quinquennium does not coincide with Tacitus’
estimate of Nero's reign. It is in fact preferable not only to leave Trajan out
of the question, as counselled by Lepper (cited below), but to omit
discussion altogether. For the debate, which becomes more and more
meaningless, see J. G. C. Anderson, Trajan on the "Quinquennium Neronis"
in JRS 1 (191 D, 177ff ; F. A. Lepper, Some Reflections on the "Quinquen-
nium Neronis" in JRS 47 (1957), 95ff; O. Murray, The "Quinquennium
Neronis" and the Stoics in Historia 14 (1965), 41ff; J. F. G. Hind, The
Middle Years of Nero's Reign in Historia 20 (1972), 488ff ; M. K. Thorn-
ton, The Enigma of Nero's "Quinquennium" in Historia 22 (1973), 570ff.
neque liberalitatis neque clementiae, ne comitatis quidem exhibendae ullam

occasionem omisit
The imperial virtues are perhaps part of the Augustan ideal; for
Augustus’ demonstration of them, cf. Suet. Aug. 41; 51; 53.2; 74 ; and
for clementia and pieias on the clupeus uirtutis, RG 34.2.
liberalitatis
The virtue does not become ‘official’ until the reign of Hadrian when it
first appears as a coin legend; BMC III clxi. But portrayal of the goddess
Liberalitas appears on the coinage of Nerva and Trajan, as indeed of Nero
himself ; BMC II] xlvii ; Ixxiii ; BMC 1 224. Its usual association is with the
granting of imperial largesse ; cf. J. Beaujeu, La Religion romaine à
l'apogée de l'empire (1955), 424 ; D. van Berchem, Les Distributions de
blé et d'argent à la plébe romaine (1939), 122. And it is with this con-
notation of imperial generosity that Suetonius normally uses the term ; cf.
Iul. 38, Aug. 41; Dom. 9. The assumption of several new virtues by
Hadrian (cf. Syme, Tacitus, 756) may have meant that Suetonius was par-
ticularly conscious of this attribute at the time of writing, but the Neronian
coinage shows well enough that imperial generosity was heavily advertised ;
cf. the legends CONG. I DAT. POP. S.C. and CONG. 11 DAT. POP. S.C., BMC I
224ff ; 261 ( Smallwood, Documents, no. 56) ; see further below, 75f ;
203f.
clementiae
Clementia signifies an enlightened leniency in the treatment of political
offenders by the princeps and is the prerogative of an absolute ruler since its
exercise presupposes an imperial position supra leges ; cf. Sen. De Clem.
1.5.4-7. It is significantly absent from the coinage of Nero, appearing in
the first century only on the coins of Tiberius and Vitellius ; BMC I cxxxvi,
132 ; cexxviii, 384ff. Coins from early in the reign, however, display the
corona ciuica (e.g., BMC 1 201) which has associations with clementia ; cf.
Sen. De Clem. 1.26.5, and since the time of Augustus clementia had been
firmly incorporated within the catalogue of imperial virtues ; cf. RG 34.1 ;
Sen. De Clem. 1.1.9 ; Suet. Aug. 51.1. It entered politics in the age of
Julius Caesar, for whose clemency, Suet. 7ul. 75.1 ; cf. App. BC 2.106 ;
Cic. Pro Marc. ; Pro Lig., passim ; Ch. Wirszubski, Libertas as a Political
Idea at Rome (1950), 151 ; and it has a special interest for the reign of
Nero since Seneca's treatise De Clementia was addressed to the young em-
peror. The work is a recognition of the absolutism inherent in the Prin-
cipate, and an appeal for a guarantee of orderly relations between the prin-
ceps and his subjects, for harmony in the state through the tempering of ab-
solutism with the spirit of mercy. Cf. Tac. Ann 13.4 ; Sutherland, Coinage,
149f ; Weinstock, DJ, 241ff; for the sinister connotations that clementia
might acquire, M. P. Charlesworth, The Virtues of a Roman Emperor in
Proc. Brit. Acad. 23 (1937), 112ff. An attempt to trace the origins of
Neronian ‘solar theology’ (on which see below, 175ff ; 288ff) to De Clem.
1.8.3 is not convincing ; P. Grimal, REL 49 (1971), 205ff.
From Suetonius’ examples of clemency which follow it seems that he
associates the virtue with the early reign especially. But there are in-
dications that an attempt was made to promote the virtue at the end of the
reign as well; cf. the AFA for 66, Clememí[tiae vacc.] (= Smallwood,
Documents, no. 25) ; ILS 5947, clementiae optumi maximique principis
(= Smallwood, Documents, no. 392).
comitatis
The quality of affability does not appear as a propaganda item on the
coinage, perhaps because it is a private attribute, dependent upon character
rather than policy. Cf. Goodyear ad Tac. Ann. 1.33.2 (Germanicus). It
denotes successful relations between princeps and people on a personal, in-

dividual level ; cf. Suet. Aug. 52.2 ; Titus 8.2 ; Sen. De Clem. 1.13.4, ser-
mone adfabilis, aditu accessuque facilis. Direct approach to the princeps was
much more a feature of the Principate than of later autocratic systems ; cf.
F. Millar, JRS 57 (1967), 9ff.
grauiora uectigalia aut aboleuit aut minuit

Vectigalia were indirect taxes as opposed to the direct taxation of the
Empire, tributum ; Tac. Ann. 1.11.6. In $8 Nero considered the abolition of
all indirect taxation in response to complaints against the exactions of the
publicani. After the financial havoc which this would cause had been poin-
ted out, however, Nero contented himself with measures to curb the rapacity
of the tax agents ; Tac. Ann. 13.50-51. The incident has been variously ap-
praised — a scheme for free trade throughout the Empire, an illustration of
the statecraft of Seneca and Burrus, a folly on the part of Nero ; Henderson,
88 ; Momigliano, 712f ; Syme, Tacitus, 414. The last view seems closest to
the truth. There is no reason why Tacitus should not recount genuine feel-
ing on the part of some senators that the implementation of Nero's proposal
would cause financial chaos and demands for further tax reductions, Ann.
13.50.2-3. Not of least importance, the aerarium militare was financed by
the uectigalia. Cizek, 10Sff, wildly exaggerates the importance of the
proposal by inventing a crisis on the issue between Nero and the senate of
considerable duration. If the issue was debated in the consilium in the
course of 57, as Cizek maintains, preparatory diplomacy by Seneca to
forestall or appease senatorial opposition would surely be expected. But
there is no sign of Seneca's involvement with this item, nor indeed of any
long-term planning for the proposal. The cultivation of personal popularity
may have been a motive of Nero, Tac. Ann. 13.50.1, but concentration here
is misdirected. The publicani had acquired sums of money for their own
benefit under the guise of lawful taxation. It is the abolition of these false
taxes which needs to be stressed, especially since the reform lasted until at
least the time of Tacitus and Suetonius, manet tamen abolitio quadragesi-
mae quinquagesimaeque et quae alia exactionibus inlicitis nomina publicani
inuenerant, Tac. Ann. 13.51.2. It is this positive gain which concerns
Suetonius here. Whether Nero was responsible for the legislation is un-
known ; against the possibility, Rostovtzeff, SEHRE? 706 n. 43 ; J. Crook,
Consilium Principis (1955), 121.
praemia delatorum Papiae legis ad quartas redegit

Nero's action is not mentioned elsewhere ; the date of the measure is not
known, though there may be a connection with certain events in 62 ; see

AJP 94 (1973), 181. The /ex Papia Poppaea of A.D. 9 concluded Augustus’
social legislauon through which he attempted to promote marriage and in-
crease the birth-rate particularily amongst the upper classes of Roman
society. The provisions of the law are not fully clear, due to its confusion in
antiquity with the /ex 7ulia de maritandis ordinibus, but it was designed to
bolster preceding legislation by relaxing certain penalties. The basis of the
Augustan system was that unmarried people and childless couples were
prevented from rights of inheritance, while marriage and reproduction led to
the acquisition of privileges in private and public life. For details see Dio
56.10 ; cf. 54.16.1; 55.2.6 ; Tac. Ann. 3.25.1 ; Bruns, Fontes? no. 23;
CAH X 441ff. Informers were offered inducements by the legislation and
quickly began to operate on a large scale ; Tac. Ann. 3.25.2 ; 28.4-5. Nero's
measure continued the post-Augustan trend of diminishing the severity of
the marriage laws; Tiberius established a commission to disentangle
problems caused by these provisions, Tac. Ann. 3.28, and Claudius made
further concessions, Suet. Claud. 23.1.
diuisis populo uiritim quadringenis nummis

The congiarium originally was a distribution of wine or oil made to the
people by magistrates. Julius Caesar was the first to convert the distribution
in kind into one of cash ; Dio 43.21.3 ; 44.35.3 ; Suet. 7u/. 38.1 ; 83.2. His
example was followed by succeeding emperors to such a degree that what in
the beginning had been an act of munificence became an obligation for the
princeps if he were to maintain popular support ; Z. Yavetz, Plebs and Prin-
ceps (1969), 137. Those who benefitted from congiaria were essentially the
plebs frumentaria ; cf. van Berchem, op. cit., 128ff. These distributions
should be distinguished from the irregular gifts to theatre audiences ; see
s.11.2. On congiaria in general see DS s.v. congiarium' ; van Berchem, 4.c.
For the distribution of HS400 a man in 57, cf. Tac. Ann. 13.31.2 ;
Chronog. 354 ( 2 Chron. Min. | ed. Mommsen, 146). The literary sources
record only one distribution under Nero, but a second congiarium is
celebrated on the coinage ; BMC I cixxvii ; 225ff ; 261 ; cf. above, 72f. The
coins are commemorative issues, so there is nothing of value in their date,
64-6, for the date of the benefactions. In 51, however, at Nero's tirocinium
Claudius had given a congiarium in Nero's name; Tac. Ann. 12.41.3;
above, 59. It is a reasonable supposition that this was the event recalled by
the Neronian government in the mid-sixties. The association with his name
wil] have been adequate reason for Nero to appropriate to himself respon-
sibility for the earlier act of generosity and to derive personal popularity
from it. An alternative explanation, however, would be to associate the se-

cond largesse with events of 59; see below, 203f.
senatorum nobilissimo cuique, sed a re familiari destituto annua salaria et

quibusdam quingena constituit
The following examples are attested : (1) M. Valerius Messala Corvinus,
a descendant of the Republican orator and Nero's colleague in the con-
sulship of 58 (cf. 91), was given supposedly from that year on HS500,000
to remove the paupertas innoxia of his family ; Tac. Ann. 13.34.1-2 ; PIR'!
V 91. (2) Aurelius Cotta, perhaps the son of the consul of 20, was given an
annual pension from 58, despite his dissipation of the family fortune ; Tac.
Ann. 13.34.3 ; PIR? A 1486. (3) Q. Haterius Antoninus, cos. 53, received a
similar grant. He seems to have been less distinguished in public life than
his father and grandfather; Tac. Ann. 13.34.3 ; PIR? H 26.
It becomes obvious that Suetonius has generalised here from the source
material which gave Tacitus the details of the three benefactions, though it
always remains conceivable that there were other cases of which no record
has survived. Nero did reward the most influential of his amici, but they
were not in financial straits ; Tac. Ann. 13.18.1-2. [t seems, too, that Nero
had some concern for the maintenance of established senatorial families in
general ; cf. s.15.2 on entry to the senate. For the method of acquiring sub-
ventions through the medium of influential freedman such as Epaphroditus
see Epict. Diss. 1.26.11-12 with F. Millar, JRS 55 (1965), 144. And on
imperial generosity to senators, not unusual, see Friediànder, | 233. For the
context of senatorial wealth, A. H. M. Jones, Ancient Empires and the
Economy: Rome in Third International Conference of Economic History
1965 (1970), 92.
item praetorianis cohortibus frumentum menstruum gratuitum

The measure is in keeping with the general favour shown to the
praetorians throughout the reign. For the donative at Nero's accession see
above, 64. Further donatives were given after the murder of Agrippina and
the disclosure of the Pisonian conspiracy, doubtless successful efforts to
guarantee military loyalty at moments of political crisis ; Dio 61.14.3 ; Tac.
Ann. 15.72. 1. The twelve praetorian cohorts were paid 750 denarii a year,
so it is generally agreed; P. A. Brunt, Pay and Superannuation in the
Roman Army in PBSR 18 (1950), 55 ; G. R. Watson, The Roman Soldier
(1969), 98. The cost of grain was normally deducted from the praetorians'
pay, and probably continued to be deducted from legionary pay ; Brunt, ari.
cit., 53 ; Watson, op. cit., 102ff. After the present enactment the saving to
the praetorians was a minimal equivalent of 24 denarii a year. This is the

estimate of Brunt, art. cít., 60, who assumes that Nero's measure here had
permanent force. But the assumption is dubious. Suetonius' text is usually
coupled with Tac. Ann. 15.72.1, quibus perpetratis Nero et contione militum
habita bina nummum milia uiritim manipularibus diuisit addiditque sine
pretio frumentum, quo ante ex modo annonae utebantur. This passage be-
longs to 65 after the discovery of Piso's conspiracy. Tacitus does not say
specifically that the praetorians received free grain, or even the donative,
but this must be assumed since only praetorians wouid be available for the
contio, and some praetorians had been involved in the conspiracy (Tac. Ann.
15.50.3fD. But there are difficulties. The clause addiditque... frumentum
could be detached from the main statement about the donative which would
mean not only that the date of 65 for the present Suetonian passage is un-
certain but also that a subvention was given to the legions. This, however,
would entail an enormous cost to the aerarium militare if a permanent
measure and is hence unlikely. And Suetonius is, after all, precise about the
praetorians. On the other hand, the donative recorded by Tacitus was a one
time only affair. So if the text is kept intact it ought to follow that the gift
of grain was too. The clause quo... utebantur is no evidence either way. If
Suetonius' evidence is added, the result would be a special bonus of a
month's grain in addition to the donative. menstruum, that is, should mean
not ‘every month’ but ‘for one, and one month only.’ In support of this it
can be observed that the imposition of a permanent charge on the military
treasury would not be sound financial policy given the inflationary situation
represented by the currency debasement in 64. Also, legionary resentment
of praetorian conditions (cf. Tac. Amn. 1.17) would surely be avoided, not
deliberately created, by any government if possible. A permanent im-
provement for the praetorians would thus make sense only if the legions
likewise received some benefit, and of this there is no sign under Nero.
Moreover, in the records of the pay increases to the army under Domitian,
Severus, and Caracalla, no source mentions a praetorian privilege of free
grain. Consequently, the present passage should be dated to 65, associated
with the conspiracy of Piso, and interpreted as a special gift to the
praetorians, not as a permanent improvement in their conditions of service.
10.2 et cum de supplicio cuiusdam capite damnati ut ex more subscriberet

admoneretur : quam uellem, inquit, nescire litteras
The demonstration of clementia ; cf. above, 73. Cf. Sen. De Clem. 2.1.2,
Animaduersurus in latrones duos Burrus praefectus tuus, uir egregius et tibi
principe natus, exigebat a te, scriberes, in quos et ex qua causa
animaduerti uelles ; hoc saepe dilatum ut aliquando fieret, instabat. Inuitus

inuito cum chartam protulisset traderetque, exclamasti : uellem litteras
nescirem. The incident will have occurred between the accession and the
composition of the De Clementia, which is probably 55/6 ; see J. M. C.
Toynbee, CQ 36 (1942), 83ff, favouring 60 ; A. D. Momigliano, CQ 38
(1944), 96ff, favouring 55/6, the common view ; cf. M. Coffey, Lustrum 6
(1961), 263ff ; Hohl, 358 ; Kraft, art. cit. At this early period the lead of
Nero in government was small, but it is at least clear from this text that the
princeps' participation in judicial administration, if only in a nominal form,
was normal and essential. Although Nero professed the intention of avoid-
ing an excessive supervision of judicial affairs, Tac. Ann. 13.4.2, it may be
that he had to sanction all capital cases not heard in his own court ; thus A.
H. M. Jones, The Criminal Courts of the Roman Republic and Principate
(1972), 95f, stressing ex more, and missing the Senecan parallel above
which is very early evidence for the probable delegation of criminal jurisdic-
tion to the praefectus praetorio by the princeps and which should be added
to Jones’ comments, op. cit., 97f, on the development of the criminal
powers of the praetorian prefects.
The authenticity of Nero's dictum should not be doubted if it is assumed
that Suetonius took his information from Seneca. The change from one to
two criminals might imply that Suetonius took the information from an
inaccurate source intermediate between Seneca and himself, or else that his
first hand transmission was concerned more with effect than with the details
of the episode. On Suetonius’ sources see above, 17f. There is little,
however, to commend the speculation of L. Herrmann, StudClas 2 (1960),
246, that this episode concerns the trials of St. Peter and St. Paul.
This single illustration of clementia hardly bears out the generalisation at
the beginning of s. 10.1. Further examples are difficult to find also. In 55
Plautius Lateranus was restored to the senate, having earlier been exiled for
adultery with Messalina, Tac. Ann. 13.11.2. In 58 Nero prevented groun-
dless charges being brought by informers against the son of P. Suillius, Tac.
Ann. 13.43.7. But there is little evidence of the exercise of clementia in-
terfering with the normal working of justice in the early years of the reign.
Some imperial protection of P. Celer is implied at Tac. Ann. 13.33.1, but
provincial governors guilty of extortion could be punished appropriately, as
other offenders, Tac. Ann. 13.33.3 ; 44.9. Those acquitted may be reason-
ably assumed innocent ; cf. Tac. Ann. 13.30.1. At the same time people who
represented a threat to imperial security did not benefit at all from clemen-
tía ; Tac. Ann. 13.1; 15-6 ; Dio 61.6.4. In reality, at the beginning of the
reign there was no more than a display of clemency ; cf. Tac. Ann. 13.11.2,
clementiam suam obstringens crebris orationibus quas Seneca..uoce principis

uulgabat ; Cal. Sic. Eclog. 1.58f. See further AJP 94 (1973), 172ff.
omnis ordines subinde ac memoriter salutauit

The examples of comitas begin.
agenti senatui gratias respondit: cum meruero

Mattingly, BMC I clxxi, associates this incident with Nero's refusal of the
title pater patriae, but gives no evidence for this idea. More likely, it is the
Suetonian version of the honours proposed for Nero in 54 ; cf. Tac. Ann.
13.8.
ad campestres exercitationes suas admisit et plebem

For the Campus Martius as the traditional area of physical exercise,
Veget. De Re Milit. 1.10; Hor. Carm. 1.8; cf. Platner, Ashby, Topo-
graphical Dictionary, 93. And for Nero's relations with the p/ebs, generally
good, see Z. Yavetz, Plebs and Princeps (1969), 120ff.
declamauitque saepius publice

An integral part of the Roman educational system was the set speech on
a given topic (suasoria, controuersia), essentially an artificial contrivance
based on an improbable legal situation or else a distorted version of some
historical crisis; cf. J. Carcopino, Daily Life in Ancient Rome (1964
edition), 132 ; H.-I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity (1964
edition), 277f. Nero apparently continued the practice as an adult, which
might imply that his oratorical abilities were greater than Tacitus (at least)
believed ; Amn. 13.3. And it has been stated that Nero's concert per-
formances gave "fresh impetus to the practice" of declamation ; S. F. Bon-
ner, Roman Declamation (1949), 77. For the contemporary criticisms of
declamation, however, see Bonner, op. cit., 71ff; and for Nero's early
speeches, above, 60.
recitauit et carmina, non modo domi sed in theatro, tanta uniuersorum

laetitia, ut ob recitationem supplicatio decreta sit eaque pars carminum
aureis litteris loui Capitolino dicata.
Recitatio was a feature of Roman literary and social life best understood
from various references in the Letters of the younger Pliny. An author in-
vited friends to listen to recitals of his own works, the ostensible purpose
being to elicit constructive criticism before publication of the work. Recitals
were given of works from every literary genre. But the serious purpose
disappeared during the course of the first century as polite society converted
the practice into an artificial, conventional device, as Suetonius himself well
knew (Plin. Epp. 9.34). A person about to give a recital would feel com-
pelled to attend the sessions of his friends beforehand to be sure of an au-
dience. Recitatio came to encourage dilettantism in literature. Men of affairs
participated, but they were amateurs who relied on imitation rather than
original literary gifts. It originated in the Augustan period with recitals by
Virgil'S patron, Asinius Pollio, so the interest of Nero here is not unusual
for the court circle. Claudius attended recitals and also gave performances
himself (Plin. Epp. 1.13.3 ; Suet. Claud. 41.1-2). Normally the procedure
was a private affair with only a few people in the audience, but Nero seems
to have gone to extreme lengths in making appearances in the theatre.
See Plin. Epp. 1.16.5; 2.19.1; 3.18; 4.7.2; 4.27; 5.3; 5.12; 6.21;
7.17 ; 8.12.4 ; 8.21.: 9.27.1 ; Sen. Contr. 4 praef. 2 ; Juv. 1.1ff ; Sherwin-
White, Pliny, ad ll.; A. Dalzell, Asinius Pollio and Recitation at Rome in
Hermathena 86 (1955), 20ff.
carmina
For Nero's poetry see s.52.
supplicatio
This is otherwise unattested, but for the phraseology cf. Tac. Ann.
15.23.3, et additae supplicationes..utque Fortunarum effigies aureae in solio
Capitolini louis locarentur.
Sections 11.1-13.2: Spectacula
Spectacula, most easily translated as 'entertainments,' often constitute a

rubric within Suetonius’ biographical method; cf. Jul. 39 ; Aug. 43-45;
Calig. 18-20 ; Claud. 21 ; Domit. 4 ; and Suetonius’ especial interest in the
subject is a plausible notion ; cf. Townend, Latin Biography, 82 ; above,
15 n.14. In such passages certain items inevitably recur, the stock of plays,
circuses, and gladiatorial contests. But also included are events
peculiar to individual reigns such as the displays of wild beasts by Augus-
tus, Caligula's bridge of boats, or the Greek games of Domitian. Some lives
do not have the rubric, either because an emperor was lax in the provision
of entertainments (cf. Tib. 47), or because reigns were too short for them
(for example, during 68/9). The material used by Suetonius in these sec-
tions appears randomly in the other major literary sources, but only
Suetonius organises it into a single, coherent unit.
It is a commonplace that the urban population expected to be provided

with amusements as well as food by the princeps, who could hope to main-
tain popular favour only in so far as these were forthcoming. Not sur-
prisingly, therefore, the number of presentations steadily increased through-
out the first century. Further, and of note, the assembly of people in theatre
and circus superseded to some extent the Republican comitial assemblies
and permitted opportunities for popular opinion to reach the emperor direc-
tly. It was not simply the lower classes who found pleasure in the diversions
provided by the princeps, as the allocation of special seats for senators and
equites shows. And the fact that Suetonius includes Neronian spectacula
among the commendable deeds of the reign is doubtless due to Nero's
recognition of the need to promote urban tranquillity for the sake of his
own popularity.
General Bibliography : Friedlander, Il ; Carcopino, op. cit., 223fT ; J. P.
V. D. Balsdon, Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome (1969), 244ff; R.
MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order (1967), passim ; Yavetz, op. cit.
passim.
11.1. Spectaculorum plurima et uaria genera edidit: iuuenales, circenses,

scaenicos ludos, gladiatorium munus
For the generalisation cf., for example, /u/. 39.1. The whole of s.11 is
sadly misinterpreted by M. E. K. Thornton, TAPA 102 (1971), 629, who
maintains that Suetonius considers this passage an example of Neronian ex-
travagance, that Nero was concerned with providing "food and jobs to an
economy in the throes of an economic depression" through his en-
tertainments. These views ignore the fact that Suetonius generally approves
the spectacula, that extravagance is dealt with elsewhere in the biography,
ss.30. 1ff, and that antiquity had no conception of ‘the economy ; (M. I.
Finley, The Ancient Economy [1973]. 21).
iuuenales
Caligula added a day to the celebration of the Saturnalia and called it
iuuenalis, Suet. Cal. 17.2, but before Nero there is no record of Juvenalia,
games in honour of luventas, as such; cf. Dio 61.19.1. For later
celebrations, Dio 67.14.3 ; HA Gord. 4.6 ; cf. DS s.v. 'Juvenalia,' and see
further below, 82.
circenses, scaenicos ludos, gladiatorium munus

The three main forms of entertainment were given respectively in the cir-
cus, theatre, and amphitheatre. The increase of shows under the Principate
was attended by a corresponding lavishness of presentation. For the origins

of these entertainments and the technicalities of performances see Friedlan-
der, 19ff; Carcopino, op. cit., 234ff.
iuuenalibus senes quoque consulares anusque matronas recepit ad lusum

The Juvenalia were held by Nero in 59 and were a purely private affair,
celebrated within the confines of the imperial estates in Rome though with
an audience from the common people; Tac. Ann. 14.15; 15.33.1 ; Dio
61.19.3 ; Plin. NH 37.19. Tacitus and Dio confirm the participation of
elderly upper class personages, and the identity of one aged dancer is
known, a certain Aelia Catella; Dio 61.19.2; Tac. Ann. 14.15.2 ; cf.
16.21.1. Cf. Tac. Hist. 3.62 for Fabius Valens. Others formed a chorus and
the use of masks to conceal identity was forbidden. The climax of the
festival was the appearance onstage of Nero, who performed on the lyre ;
Dio 61.19.2-3; Tac. Ann. 14.15.6.
The shows were of the theatrical type, Graeci Latiniue histrionis artem,
Tac. Ann. 14.15.2; cf. Dio 61.19.2; 20.2. This probably involved in-
dividual recitals of excerpts since full performances of dramas were now
unusual ; Friedlander, 98 ; cf. also Tac. Hist. 3.62 for mimes. Tacitus, Ann.
14.15.4, inserts an orgiastic note into his description, perhaps unfairly.
Associated with the festival was the formation of the Augustiani, below,
127, and Sutherland, Coínage. 158f, suggests from this that Nero was in-
terested in spreading hellenistic educational practices among Roman society.
Henderson, 130 ; Hohl, 371 ; Warmington, 114f.
circensibus
Usually the races in the Circus Maximus, for which see Platner, Ashby,
Topographical Dictionary, \\\ff. According to Plin. NH 36.102, it had a
seating capacity of 250,000, though this may be an exaggeration, cf. Plat-
ner, Ashby, 119. Under Claudius twenty-four races a day had been normal,
a complete day's business for the domini factionum, Dio 60.27.2 ; cf. below,
136. In general, DS s.v. ‘circus.’
loca equiti secreta a ceteris tribuit

Cf. Tac. Ann. 15.32.2 ; Cal. Sic. Eclog. 7.26ff ; Plin. NH 8.21. The date
was 63; Tac. lc.
commisitque etiam camelorum quadrigas

For similarly odd deviations see Dio 61.6.2; HA Heliog. 23.
11.2 ludis
Serious drama scarcely flourished under the Principate and stage per-
formances usually consisted of pantomime and mime, or the Atellan farce.
The two latter catered particularly to the public taste for the obscene. See
Friedlander, 90ff ; M. Bieber, The History of the Greek and Roman Theater?
(1961), 227ff. For the three principal theatres in the city, of Balbus, Pom-
pey, and Marcellus, Platner, Ashby, Topographical Dictionary, 513ff. Cf.
Sen. De Clem. 1.6.1.
quos pro aeternitate imperii susceptos appellari maximos uoluit

Cf. Dio 61.17.2 for close agreement of subject matter. Hence, in all
likelihood the maximi belong to Dio's date of 59.
[n his discussion of the sepulchral inscription of Q. Veranius, cos. 49, A.
E. Gordon suggested that the maximi were presided over by Veranius and
restored lines 10ff of the inscription thus: /udis [maximis praefectus (or
praesidens) factus est, cum non p]etierit, ab Augusto principe, culus
liberalitatis erat minister, [legatus Neronis Caesaris German]ici prouinciae
Britanniae, in qua decessit (Univ. Cal. Pub. Class. Arch. 2[1952], 271). A
review of this work by J. H. Oliver, AJP 75 (1954), 206ff, vigorously
altered this restoration to that which now appears as Smallwood, Docu-
ments, no. 231 (c). But both Oliver and Smallwood retained the /udi maxi-
mi. This cannot be correct, however, for by 59 Veranius had been appointed
to the British command and was probably already dead. The /udi in the in-
scription should more likely be the /udi circenses given in 51 ; cf. above,
59. Since liberalitas suggests the distribution of imperial largesse or the
giving of a donative, what is required is an occasion when games and
largesse were given in close proximity before c.58. The best solution comes
from Nero's coming of age (above, 58D, when Claudius gave a congiarium
in Nero's name which was followed by circenses ; Tac. Ann. 12.41.3-4.
Veranius might well then have assisted in the distribution ; cf. Dio 60.25.8.
The relevant portion of the inscription might thus read, /udis [circensibus
congiarium diuisit cum plebs p]etierit ab Augusto principe, cuius liberalitatis
erat minister (!).
pro aeternilate imperii

Since the games belong to 59, the present text could be understood as
(1) This is preferred to J. H. Oliver's suggestion to me of using distribuit instead of

diuisit and inserting it in line 12, which creates new problems there. Cf. GRBS 16 (1975),
308.
part of the anti-Agrippina feeling after the matricide (cf. Tac. Ann. 14.11)
and may represent something of a political bid for support by Nero after the
murder of his mother; for which see below, 200ff.
ex utroque ordine et sexu plerique ludicras partes sustinuerunt

Cf. Dio 61.17. Suetonius does not take an adverse view of the stage ap-
pearances of people from the upper levels of Roman society, unlike Dio and
Tacitus (cf. Ann. 14.15.5). Such appearances were not always compulsory
but were sometimes desired by the participants themselves ; cf. Tac. Amn.
15.65 ; Dio 61.17.3 ; Pan. in Pison. 84ff. Cf. also s.4.1. Contrast, however,
the apparent compulsion to perform at Epict. Díss. 1.26.11-12, with Millar.
JRS 55 (1965), 144 ; cf. Tac. Hist. 3.62.
notissimus eques R. elephanto supersidens per catadromum decucurrit

Cf. Dio 61.17.2 ; the knight is not identifiable. For tightropewalking
elephants, cf. Suet. Gaíb. 6 ; Friedlander, 62íT.
inducta Afrani togata

It appears from this text that the togata could be revived occasionally but
this was an exception to the normal course of events ; cf. Friedlander, 95.
Togatae continued stil! to be written, but only for recitationes ; Juv. 1.3 (cf.
above, 79f).
L. Afranius was born about 150 B.C., the preeminent author of the
Roman comedy of manners which was adopted from the Greek pallíata ; cf.
Quint. 10.1.100 ; Hor. Epist. 2.1.57 ; Suet. De Poet. Ter. S.
quae incendium < in? scribitur

Some forty-five titles of Afranius! plays have survived, listed tn Schanz-
Hosius I* (1927), 144.
concessumque ut scaenici ardentis domus supellectilem diriperent ac sibi

haberent
Bieber, op. cit., 247, cites this passage to illustrate the process whereby
sensationalism in the theatre was undermining and replacing the more
serious performances of the Republic.
sparsa et populo missilia omnium rerum per omnes dies

Cf. Dio 61.18.1-2, with a similar list to that which follows in Suetonius’
text. The distributions should belong to 59 according to their context in
s. 11.2, and they fall under that year in Dio's version. For similar gifts at
ludi, cf. Suet. Calig. 18.2 ; Domit. 4.5 ; and for the political value to the
princeps, Yavetz, op. cit., 103ff.
tesserae frumentariae
Small wooden tokens which could be exchanged for grain by the
recipient ; cf. Suet. Aug. 40.2 ; 41.2 (tesserae nummariae) ; Dio 61.18.1-2.
See M. I. Rostovizeff, Rómische Bleitesserae (1905), 10fF.
insulae
Cf. below, 233.
12.1 munere
Few gladiatorial contests were provided under Nero. They are recorded
for 57 (below) 59 and 63 in Rome, and in 66 at Puteoli; Tac. Ann.
14.14.6 ; 15.32.3 ; Dio 61.17.3 ; 62.3.1. In addition, at the beginning of
the reign designate quaestors were relieved of the obligation to provide
munera ; Tac. Ann. 13.5.1. [n general, Tert. De Spect. 12 ; Friedlander,
41ff; Balsdon, op. cit., 250.
amphitheatro ligneo regione Martii campi intra anni spatium fabricato

According to Platner, Ashby, Topographical Dictionary, |l, this new
construction occupied the site of the stone theatre of Statilius Taurus which
was destroyed in the fire of 64 (for which see below, 226fD ; Dio 62.18.2.
This cannot be so, because the wooden amphitheatre belongs to 57, Tac.
Ann. 13.31.1, when the stone building obviously was stil! standing. It is
celebrated at Cal. Sic. Eclog. 7.23ff ; cf. Plin. NH 16.200 ; 19.25, and see
Blake, Roman Construction, 34f.
dedit
A gladiatorial contest to mark the completion of the amphitheatre may be
assumed.
neminem occidit
Contests were normally a fight to the death. Nero's attitude may have
been the result of Greek influence which discountenanced the violent
element of the games. Alternatively, the humanitarian influence of Seneca
has been seen as the restraining force on Nero here ; J. Crook, Consilium
Principis (1955), 121.
noxiorum
Convicted criminals, damnati ad gladium, a punishment equivalent to
deportatio or damnatio in metallum ; they were supposed to be dispensed
with within a year of condemnation, but the present text implies the prin-
ceps' ability to remit sentence ; Paul. Sent. 5.17.2 ; Dig. 48.19.31 ; cf.
Garnsey. Social Status, 129ff.
exhibuit autem ad ferrum etiam quadringentos senatores sescentosque

equites Romanos et quosdam fortunae atque existimationis integrae
Suetonius’ statistics are suspiciously large. If true they would mean that
well over haif the senate took to gladiatorial fighting (cf. Dio 54.13-14 ;
42.1-2). Lipsius' emendation, quadragenos s. sexagenosque, probably
comes closer to the truth. For the contrast with people whom poverty had
made amenable to appearances in the arena, Tac. Ann. 14.14.5.
exhibuit et naumachiam marina aqua innantibus beluis

Cf. Dio 61.9.5, whose similar material fixes the date here to 57. The
naumachia, a sham naval battle between legendary rivals, historical or
otherwise, was an entertainment peculiar to the late Republic and early Em-
pire. After Titus and Domitian, the spectacle disappears. DS s.v. ‘nauma-
chia."
pyrrichas
Dancers of a ballet whose dramatic form was akin to the mime, but which
originated as a Greek war dance; Friedlander, 108.
quibus post editam operam diplomata ciuitatis Romanae singulis optulit

Individual grants of citizenship are not a major issue under Nero, Sher-
win-White, The Roman Citizenship? (1973), 252 n.1. A few grants are on
record, to the judges of the games in Greece, below, 147, and to two Ger-
man princes, Tac. Ann. 13.54.6, but large numbers of people are not in-
volved ; see also 114. The diplomata were presumably similar to the
military type.
12.2 ceterum accubans, paruis primum foraminibus, deinde toto podio

adaperto spectare consueuerat
Whatever his personal inclination, the prínceps was expected to attend
the /udi ; cf. Suet. Aug. 45.1. He viewed the games from the puluinar, a
‘royal box,’ which was located on the podium, a raised platform above the
arena; cf. Suet. Claud. 21.1.
12.3 Instituit et quinquennale certamen primus omnium Romae more Grae-

co triplex, musicum gymnicum equestre, quod appellauit Neronia
Cf. Tac. Ann. 14.20-21 ; Dio 61.21.1. The date was 60. Nero's action in
introducing Greek games to Rome is remarkable for the complete break
represented with Roman tradition. In contrast to the emphasis on the sen-
sational or obscene at the Roman games, Greek games concentrated on
athletics and aesthetic aspects. Greek games were not unknown in Haly of
course ; Augustus had introduced Greek games at Naples (on which see R.
M. Geer, TAPA 66 [1935], 208ff), but the character of Naples itself was, af-
ter all, Greek. So Nero's action was important enough to warrant
celebration on the coinage : CER(TAMEN) QUINQ(UENNALE) ROM(AE) Co(Ns-
TITUTUM) s. c., BMC I 251 ; 277ff ( - Smallwood, Documents, no. 57).
The games were first presented in 60. They were financed by the state
and ranked as sacra, religious festivals like their Greek prototypes ; Tac.
Ann. 14.21.4 ; 7. They were to be held every four years, the normal mean-
ing in this context of quinquennale ; J. P. D. Bolton, CQ 42 (1948), 82ff;
contra, Balsdon, op. cit., 325. For the games of 64 and 68 see below, 129ff.
The musical section of the festival included competitions in oratory and
poetry as well as singing, in which the poet Lucan was conspicuous ; Tac.
Ann. 14.20.5 ; 21.5 ; Suet. Vit. Luc. Tacitus, Ann. 14.20, records a current
of Roman feeling hostile to the Neronia ; effeminacy was feared, though
perhaps more in Tacitus' day than Nero's ; cf. Plin. Epp. 4.22 and see Sher-
win-White, Pliny, 301. Greek games were later given by Domitian, Suet.
Domit. 4.4, but not after this except for a stray mention in the third cen-
tury, Aur. Vict. De Caes. 27.6.
more Graeco
Cf. Tac. Ann. 14.20.1, ad morem Graeci certaminis.
dedicatisque thermis atque gymnasio senatui quoque et equiti oleum praebuit

The context of this item implies that it is associated with the first
Neronia of 60 (above), but this raises a problem over the dating of the two
buildings mentioned in the text. According to Tacitus, Ann. 14.47.3, the
gymnasium was built in 61, while late sources assign completion of the ther-
mae to 64 ; Hier. Chron. 2079 ; Cassiod. Chron. Min. 2.138. Dio, however,
appears to support Suetonius in saying that the building and dedication of
the gymnasium were connected with the Neronia of 60 ; 61.21.1. Suetonius,
Tacitus, and Dio all associate the dedication of the gymnasium with the
distribution of oil to senators and knights, which again Suetonius and Dio
would have in 60, Tacitus in 61; Tac. Ann. Lc ; Dio 61.21.2. Since a
distribution of oil seems to make little sense after the event of the Neronia,
it is best to follow Suetonius and Dio against Tacitus here.
The baths were famous in antiquity for their luxury ; Mart. 2.48 ; 7.34.
They were situated between the site of the Pantheon and the modern Piazza
Navona; Platner, Ashby, Topographical Dictionary, 531 ; Blake, Roman
Construction, 34 ; cf. also Philost. Vit. Apoil. 4.42. The conventional view
has been that the two buildings were separate structures, but the most
recent study suggests that thermae and gymnasium were in fact two names
for the same complex of buildings : gymnasium the original name, thermae
the usual name from the Flavian period on. Further, the complex was inten-
ded as a " Trainingslokal"" for privileged young people and participants in
the Neronia ; B. Tamm, Neros Gymnasium in Rom (1970). The use of both
names in the present text, however, would not seem to support this view.
Alternatively, A. Vassileiou, REA 74 (1972), 94ff, thinks the gymnasium
was burned in 62 and replaced by the /hermae, dedicated in 66.
magistros toto certamini praeposuit consulares sorte, sede praetorum

Since the Neronia were financed by the state they logically fell within the
jurisdiction of the praetors who had been responsible for the organisation of
public festivals since 22 B.C. ; Dio 54.2.3. As presiding magistrates of the
games they occupied a special box, the tribunal, Suet. Aug. 44.3.
orationis quidem carminisque Latini coronam

Cf. Tac. Ann. 14.21.7.
citharae
Cf. Dio 61.21.2.
12.4 Saeptis
The building was situated in the Campus Martius and was the work of
the triumvir Lepidus, completed by Agrippa in 26 B.C. It was used in-
creasingly during the first century as a centre for spectacles. Dio 53.23.1-
2; Suet. Aug. 43.1 ; Calig. 18.1; Claud. 21.4; Platner, Ashby, Topo-
graphical Dictionary, 460f ; E. Nash, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome
(1962), II 291.
barbam primam posuit conditamque in auream pyxidem et pretiosissimis

margaritis adornatam Capitolio consecrauit
Dio, 61.19.1, includes the same item in his account of the Juvenalia of
59 ; cf. above, 81f; 61.21.1. [t is possible, however, that Suetonius is still
describing the events of 60.
ad athletarum spectaculum inuitauit et uirgines Vestales, quia Olympiae

quoque Cereris sacerdotibus spectare conceditur
Women were not normally allowed to attend athietic contests ; in the
theatre the Vestals sat in a reserved section opposite the praetors’ tribunal ;
Suet. Aug. 44.3. Cf. T. C. Worsfold, The History of the Vestal Virgins of
Rome (1932), 51f.
13.1 Non immerito inter spectacula ab eo edita et Tiridatis in urbem in-

troitum ret« t2» ulerim
Suetonius introduces a spectaculum peculiar to Nero's reign (cf. above,
80) ; the coronation of Tiridates of Armenia at Rome in 66. For the date cf.
Tac. Ann. 16.23.3 ; 24.1 ; Dio 63.1.1-2.
To Dio, 63.1.1, the reception of Tiridates was &/óo£óraTóv ... Epyov, as
probably to most people who saw it. Although the journey from the East
was expensive, in spite of later criticism of Nero's expenditures on the Ar-
menian king (s.30.2) it is a reflection of the impressiveness and success of
the event that Suetonius includes it amongst the commendable acta. Cf.
Hohl, 387, "Die Reise des Parthers muss auf die Zeitgenossen einen nach-
haltigen Eindruck gemacht haben". Momigliano, 734 ; F. Cumont, Riv. di
Fil. 11 (1933), 145. Cumont, art. cit., 152f, believed that Tiridates' voyage
and the initiation of Nero (see below, 90) were responsible for the personal
popularity of Nero in the East; cf. s$.57.2; Cizek, 210. But that is
only true in part. Of equal, if not greater importance, was the establishment
of an enduring peace between Rome and Parthia.
quem Armeniae regem magnis pollicitationibus sollicitatum

Suetonius possibly paraphrases the source (or sources) which were used
by Tacitus at Ann. 15.29.1-2 and Dio at 62.23.1. But in both of these
passages it is Corbulo, not Nero who is the negotiator ; cf. above, 14.
Tiridates' journey overland from the Euphrates to Italy lasted nine months
and was financed by Rome. The king was received by Nero at Naples and
after preliminary celebrations there escorted to Rome; Dio 63.2.2-3.
cum destinato per edictum die ostensurus populo propter nubilum distulisset
Suetonius has nothing of Tiridates' arrival in Naples (above), but the
fuller version of Dio has nothing of a postponed public appearance at
Rome. For similar behaviour on another occasion see s.19.1.
produxit quo oportunissime potuit

The day after the arrival in Rome according to Dio, 63.4.3 ; cf. Plin. NH
30.1 6fF.
dispositis circa fori templa armatis cohortibus

Cf. Dio 63.4.1-2 : the city, festooned overnight, was crammed on the
day of the coronation with troops readily conspicuous. The soldiers, doub-
tless praetorian detachments, served more or less as a police force ; cf. Tac.
Ann. 13.24.1 ; 25.4.
atque uexilla
Cf. Dio 63.4.3 adding the attendance on Nero of the senate and
praetorian guard.
13.2 et primo per deuexum pulpitum subeuntem admisit

Cf. Dio 63.4.3.
dein precanti tiara[m] deductam] diadema inposuit

Cf. Dio 63.4.1; 5.4.
uerba supplicis
Dio, 63.5, purports to give verbatim Tiridates’ acknowledgement of sub-
mission to Nero and the latter's reply, polite but firm. Dio's words sound
authentic: & ydp oo: ort 6 matr xatédiney oUtt of dÓtÀgoi Óóvttg
etppnoav, rauta tyw xyopitlouat xai Baotdéa tig "Apueviag nous, iva xai av
xai éxtivou. pabwotv ott xai. adpatpeiofa: Baoleias xai dwpeiobar duvayai
resembles Nero's declaration at the liberation of Greece, noéheug u£v yap xai
Got trabépwoav iyeudves, Népwy dé uóvog xai énapysiav ; Smallwood,
Documents, no. 64, lines 25f ; see below, 145ff. The obeisance of Tiridates
to Nero and his coronation led to F. Cumont's influential view that Nero
became an initiate of Mithraism through Tiridates' agency, and that at this
ceremony was symbolised Mithra’s coronation by the Sun, Riv. di Fil. 11
(1933), 145ff. Note especially Plin. NH 30.17 and Dio 63.5.2.
The evidence of Nero's interest and involvement in Mithraism, however,
is not clear-cut and it is possible that the Mithraic symbolism which may
have been understood by Tiridates in 66 was not fully shared by Nero. It
seems from Plin. NH 30.15 ; 17, that Nero's magical interests, including
Mithraism, did not last very long. The splendour of the 'golden day'
(below) can be explained in terms of Apolline imagery, though even that
should not be overestimated ; see below, 288ff. Cizek, 209ff, going beyond
Cumont, believes that the influences of Mithraism turned Nero into an
oriental monarch. Warmington, 121f, is rightly more sceptical, suggesting
that the interest quickly evaporated. Cf. Hohl, 386f ; Momigliano, 733f;
CAH X 772f ; J. Gagé, Apollon romain (1955), 665ffT ; K.-H. Ziegler, Die
Beziehungen zwischen Rom und dem Partherreich (1964), 73ff.
perductum inde in theatrum

Cf. Dio 63.6.1-3 for a description of the games. The lavish decoration of
the theatre led to the coronation day being called ‘golden’ ; cf. Plin. NH
19.24 for the purple curtains used to shield the sun and which carried a
portrait of Nero as a charioteer.
ob quae imperator consalutatus

The coins show that henceforth Nero used the praenomen imperatoris ;
e.g., Smallwood, Documents, nos. 66, 67, 69; cf. M. Hammond, The
Augustan Principate (1933), 51. Altogether Nero received some twelve ac-
clamations as imperator ; see Hohl, 391, for a summary of the dates. The
tenth and eleventh salutations belong to 66 ; cf. JLS 233; Hohl, ic.
lanum geminum clausit

This act symbolised the establishment of peace throughout the Empire,
and was commemorated on the coinage ; PACE P. R. TERRA MARIQ. PARTA
IANVM CLVSIT : BMC 1 214 ( 2 Smallwood, Documents, no. 53). Cf. G.
Webster, Britannia | (1970), 196, "During the decade ... (61-71), the
policy was one of pacification’.
14. Consulatus quattuor gessit: primum bimenstrem, secundum et nouissi-

mum semenstres, tertium quadrimenstrem ; medios duos continuauit, re-
liquos inter annua spatia uariauit
Insofar as can be determined Suetonius’ account of Nero's consulships is
mostly accurate, though it does not include the sole consulship of 68,
assumed in the crisis of Vindex' rebellion (below, 263f) and seems to be
erroneous on the details of the second tenure.
The first consulship fell in 55 and was held with L. Antistius Vetus.
Since CIL IV 5513 refers to L. Antistius and N. Cestius it is likely that this
Cestius replaced Nero on 1st March if Suetonius' evidence is accepted. The
second office, in 57, held with L. Calpurnius Piso was certainly not retained
just for a six month period. Wax tablets from Pompeii show Nero still in of-
fice with Piso's replacement, L. Caesius Martialis, as late in the year as
23rd December ; CIL IV Supp. |, xxxiv ; xxvi-xl (giving dates in the second
half of 57). The third consulship belongs to 58, Nero's colleague this time
being M. Valerius Messala Corvinus. Suetonius may be correct on the
length of tenure. The earliest attested date for a suffect is 13th June ; CIL
IV Supp. |, cxlvi with 417 (C. Fonteius Agrippa). And he is almost cer-
tainly correct on the fourth period of office, which belongs to 60, when the
colleague was Cossus Cornelius Lentulus, since C/L IV Supp. 1, clxiv

shows this pair in office on 8th May. See in general Degrassi, Fastí ;
Smallwood, Documents, 4ff.
Of more interest than the bare record of fact are the reasons why Nero
held the consulship when he did, and Suetonius' own attitude, shown by
this text and its context, towards the relatively low number of offices held.
The first consulship presents no difficulty. It was perfectly natural that
the princeps should appear as ordinarius at the first available opportunity af-
ter the accession. Likewise, the second tenure may be deemed the outcome
of the designation made at Nero's assumption of the roga uirilis (above,
58f) that he be consul during his twentieth year; Tac. Ann. 12.41.2. But
the third consulship is more difficult since so few events are known for the
years 57 and 58. Cizek, 108, speculates that the reason for the consulship
of 57 was to prepare for the proposal at the beginning of 58 to abolish the
uectigalia (cf. above, 74), but there is no evidence at all for this idea.
Possibly the evidence of Tac. Ann. 13.34.1 may be pressed to suggest that
in 58 Nero's colleague was in fact receiving imperial favour, Valerius
Messala, cuius proauum, oratorem Coruinum, diuo Augusto, abauo Neronis,
collegam in eo magistratu fuisse pauci iam senum meminerant. Little is
known of Messala, but he did benefit from the emperor's generosity ; above,
76 ; RE s.v. ‘Valerius’ no. 262. There can be no doubt, however, that the
most spectacular event of 60 was the celebration of the first Neronia (above,
87) and it should be axiomatic that the fourth consulship be associated with
this. A six month period in office would be perfectly in keeping with the
proposition that the festival belonged to the first six months of the year ;
see below, 130.
The clue to Suetonius' tacit approval of the low number of consulships is
to be found in the words continuauit and uariauit. There was no monopoly
of the consulship by Nero on the later Flavian pattern, nor did the short
periods of office preclude (as far as Suetonius thought) suffects from attain-
ing the opportunity of post-consular appointments. Compare and contrast
the notice on Domitian's consulships, significantly in the ‘bad’ section of
that biography, consulatus septemdecim cepit, quot ante eum nemo; ex
quibus septem medios continuauit ; Domit. 13.3. (Note, however, that Sue-
tonius does go on to point out that many of these offices were of short
duration.)
Cf. Suet. Claud. 14 for the conjunction of consulatus and ius, s.15.1.
15.1 in iuris dictione

The dispensation of justice by the princeps is a recurrent item in the im-
perial lives ; cf., e.g., Aug. 72.2 ; Galb. 7.2 ; Domit. 8.1. While it is clear
that by the end of the Julio-Claudian period the ability of the princeps to
hold court had become an established fact, the evidence for the con-
stitutional origins and early working of the court is meagre and con-
troversial. For modern summaries see Garnsey, Social Status, 65ff ; Jones,
Studies, 83ff ; The Criminal Courts of the Roman Republic and Principate
(1972), 91ff; W. Kunkel, An Introduction to Roman Legal and Con-
stitutional History? (1972), 71f.
postulataribus
This term suggests a preliminary procedure in imperial jurisdiction akin
to that in praetorian litigation according to which the praetor decided on the
viability of a case and appointed a iudex to hear it. Cf. Dig. 3.1.1.2,
postulare autem est desiderium suum uel amici sui in iure apud eum, qui
lurisdictioni praeest, exponere : uel alterius desiderio contradicere. The em-
peror's court was in theory open to all subjects, but in real terms ac-
cessibility to the princeps might be limited by practical, political, and social
factors ; see F. Millar, JRS 57 (1967), 9 ; Garnsey, Social Status, 67ff. For
the operation of seeking a hearing, however, observe, Plin. Epp. 6.31.8. The
technical name for this is supplicatio ; Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary, 726.
Cf. Jolowicz, Historical Introduction’, 201.
nisi sequenti die ac per libellos non temere respondit

The text demonstrates that Nero sent personal replies to litigants ; cf.
Suet. /ul. 41.2 ; Tib. 18.2. If conscientiously adhered to this practice in-
volved a considerable volume of routine business in which the princeps was
directly engaged ; cf. Millar, JRS 57 (1967), 9ff. Suetonius does not men-
tion Nero's regular participation in this work (contrast Aug. 33.1 ; Claud.
14), but there are signs that Nero's attentiveness in this respect did not
diminish during the reign ; see below, 142 ; 146 ; 252. In some instances, a
subscriptio may simply have been added to written requests presented to
him, that is, summary decisions on the case; Millar, art. cit., 11f.
cognoscendi
The actual hearing of a case by the princeps and delivery of judgement ;
cf. Jones, Studies, 85. The standard examples of imperial cognitio come
from the reign of Trajan, though the practice can be traced to the beginning
of the Principate ; Plin. Epp. 4.22 ; 6.22 ; 6.31 ; Suet. Jul. 43.1 ; Aug. 33.
Unlike trials in the praetorian courts, imperial cognitio was not bound by
any rigid rules, but was conducted under the arbitrary direction of the prin-
ceps ; cf., for example, Suet. Claud. 15 ; Jones, The Criminal Courts of the
Roman Republic and Principate, 92ff. The princeps used a body of as-
sessores who offered opinions on the decision he might give at the con-
clusion of a hearing, but he could inflict penalties as he saw fit. He was un-
der no compulsion to follow the consensus of his advisers. See in full, J.
Crook, Consilium Principis (1955), 106ff ; Sherwin-White, Pliny, 395f;
Roman Society and Law in the New Testament (1963), 13ff. J. Bleicken,
Senatsgericht und Kaisergericht (1962), 96, believes that the procedure
described here in s.15 refers primarily to civil jurisdiction, but considers
procedure in criminal hearings analagous. There is, however, no strong in-
dication of this in the text itself.
morem
Of the trials under Nero which are recorded by Tacitus few are said
specifically to have been in the emperor's court. At times it is difficult to
distinguish which court was used, the emperor's or that of the senate. But it
seems true that Nero himself heard very few cases ; cf. Sherwin-White, op.
cit., L10f ; JRS 53 (1963), 203 (of political trials) ; Garnsey, Social Status,
44. Not surprisingly the trials of the Pisonian conspirators came before
Nero (cf. below, 221), but previously only the case of Fabricius Veiento is
known definitely to have come before Nero, Tac. Ann. 14.50.2 ; yet this
trial, involving the administration, concerned Nero directly ; cf. AJP 94
(1973), 180f. Bleicken, op. cit., 97 ; 116, shows the trials of Burrus and
Pallas in 55 probably to have been cubicular ; Tac. Ann. 13.23 ; 14.62. To
these may possibly be added the trial of Clodius Quirinalis, prefect of the
fleet at Ravenna, who anticipated the verdict by suicide in 56 ; Tac. Ann.
13.30.2 (contra Jones, op. cit., 95, believing the case to have been before
the senate ; there is no way of telling ; see Furneaux, ad Tac. /.c.) ; and of
the procurator P. Celer in 57 ; Tac. Ann. 13.33.1. Nero would again be
concerned with the supervision of officials within his own government,
which was fairly normal; cf. Sherwin-White, 4c, with Tac. Dial. 7.1,
referring to imperial freedmen and procurators. Burrus' case is only an ex-
tension of this principle to a person of higher rank and responsibility. The
anecdote of Nero and Polyclitus in Plin. Epp. 6.31.9 may suggest that
favoured treatment of imperial freedman was not irregular ; cf. Garnsey,
Social Status, 85ff. But Nero was unable to secure the acquittal of Celer ;
Tac. Ann. 13.33.1 ; cf. 13.1.1. This, however, did not prevent the emperor
from gaining his own wishes, either through intervention in senatorial trials
or through the indecisiveness of the senate; cf. Tac. Amm. 13.33.1,;
14.18.4 ; 40.5; 49.
In comparable passages from other biographies Suetonius can quote
examples of verdicts given by emperors ; cf. Jul. 43.1 ; Aug. 33 ; Claud. 15.
These, however, are lacking here, and there is no adverbial modification to
indicate constant attention to jurisdiction. On the other hand Suetonius
could not be expected to record every judicial item available in his sources ;
he is equally vague, for example, about Vespasian and Domitian ; cf. Titus
7.1 ; Domit. 8.1. S.10.2 is evidence of routine administration in a slightly
different context under Nero, and the idea of routine business should not be
lost sight of here. The very fact that Suetonius can refer to a development in
consiliar procedure (below) and to an habitual action of Nero (morem) is
evidence of activity in this sphere; contrast Tíb. 33. A passage from
Josephus, Vita 13-16, which tells of certain Jewish priests being sent to
Nero by the procurator Felix and being released through Poppaea's in-
fluence, shows an expectation of imperial responsibility late in the reign, as
also the fact that any emperor was open to external pressures in dealing
with prisoners. See Bleicken, op. cit., 115f.
eum tenuit, ut continuls actionibus omissis singillatim quaeque per uices

ageret
The method of presenting a case point by point instead of in a single,
continuous speech for imperial hearings was an innovation of Nero's reign,
but known only from this text. The procedure had already been used in the
senate; Tac. Ann. 2.30.1. The measure was no doubt an attempt to
streamline trials, to which action Nero may have been prompted with the
recollection of Claudius' excessive judicial activities in mind (cf. Suet.
Claud. 15 ; Sen. Apoc. 7.5 ; Crook, op. cit., 112). The new method re-
mained in isolated use after Nero ; Pliny, Epp. 6.22.2, considered it a swift
means of discovering the truth, quo genere ueritas statim ostenditur, and it
is seen in partial operation in an inscription from Dmeir under Caracalla;
P. Roussel, F. de Visscher, Les inscriptions du temple de Dmeir in Syria 23
(1942-3), 173ff. The speeches might be made by the parties concerned, or
else by advocates on their behalf; Plin. Epp. 4.22.2; 6.22.2; 6.31.11 ;
Suet. Claud. 15.3.
quotiens autem ad consultandum secederet

Plin. Epp. 6.31.12 suggests that decisions were given immediately the
evidence in the trial had been heard; cf. Sherwin-White, ad loc. The
present text, however, is perhaps evidence in favour of the view that the
cognitio could be a bipartite affair, the hearing of evidence being followed
by the private consultation of the prínceps with his advisers (but here only
their written sententiae) ; cf. Crook, op. cit., 109. There was simply no
prescribed formula to be followed. Succeeding emperors inclined to different
procedures and to look for a single definite principle is misleading. Cf. Suet.
Aug. 93, where the advisers were not used at all, dimisso consilio... solus
audiit disceptantes.
neque in commune quicquam neque propalam deliberabat, sed et conscriptas

ab uno quoque sententías tacitus ac secreto legens
Nero's behaviour was idiosyncratic. The advisers may have adopted the
Augustan practice of using /abellae to signify opinions, though written
statements could allow wider scope for the suggestion of penalties as well as
opinions on guilt or innocence; cf. Suet. Aug. 33.2. [ndependence of
opinion was also guaranteed ; cf. Sen. De Clem. 1.15.4. But there is no
evidence in Tacitus for the procedure; contrast Tac. Ann. 13.23.4,
Burrus... sententiam dixit. It may, therefore, have been used only for a
short time. Cf. Bleicken, op. cit., 116. For oral consultation of advisers, cf.
Plin. Epp. 4.22.3, 6.22.5.
quod ipsi libuisset perinde atque pluribus idem uideretur pronuntiabat

Crook, op. cit., 112, suggests that this text reflects a calumny directed
against Nero by his advisers who wished to evade responsibility for un-
popular decisions. In Trajan's day the judgement given was usually that of
the consilium ; cf. Plin. Epp. 6.31.12, ex consilii sententia iussit, but the
princeps was not compelled to follow the majority view (above, 94).
Suetonius seems to imply here, though, that the majority opinion was ex-
pected normally.
15.2 In curiam libertinorum filios diu non admisit

By the /ex Visellia of 23 sons of freedmen were denied admission to the
equestrian order until the third generation, unless dispensatton was secured ;
Plin. NH 33.32 ; Cod. Iustin. 9.21.1. This automatically precluded entry to
the senate ; contrast under the Republic Cic. Pro Cluent. 132 ; Liv. 9.46.1 ;
Tac. Ann. 11.24. For Tacitus’ generalisation on servile origin, Amn.
13.27.2, plerisque senatoribus non aliunde originem trahi, see Syme, Taci-
tus, 612f. For dispensation, Suet. Claud. 24.1.
The present text implies that entry to the senate was managed by the em-
peror. Men whose fathers were not of senatorial rank had to secure the /atus
clauus before the senatorial cursus could be started, the award of which was
controlled by the princeps; Suet. Claud. 24.1 ; Vesp. 2.2; cf. Sherwin-
White, Pliny, 158 ; though not perhaps by Augustus ; Jones, Studies, 30.
This power was used by Claudius and Nero to advance the careers of men
who would in return maintain allegiance to the ruling dispensation ; thus D.
McAlindon, Senatorial Advancement in the Age of Claudius in Latomus 16
(1957), 252ff.
diu non
The inference is that sons of freedmen were later admitted by Nero to the
senate. But there is only one clear case, that of the jurist, Pegasus, filius
trierarchi (Schol. Juuenal. 4.77), who may have benefitted from adlection
by the emperor ; cf. S. J. de Laet, De Samenstelling van den Romeinschen
Senaat (1941), 274. He subsequently became consul under Vespasian and
praefectus urbi under Domitian; PIR! P 164; Syme, Tacitus, 805.
admissis a prioribus principibus honores denegauit

There are no good examples. Curtius Rufus, consul under Claudius be-
fore 46. died while proconsul of Africa at an advanced age in the early
years, probably, of Nero's rule. He was of servile descent, but his career was
too advanced by 54 for the change in régime to have an adverse effect. Tac.
Ann. 11.21 ; Plin. Epp. 7.27.3 ; Smallwood, Documents, 7 ; PIR? C 1618.
B. M. Levick, Historia 16 (1967), 221f. uses this text to demonstrate in-
formal imperial pre-selection of candidates before elections. For a con-
temporary ignotus, candidatus Neronis, see Gordon, Album, no. 124.
candidatos, qui supra numerum essent, in solacium dilationis ac morae

legionibus praeposuit
Cf. Tac. Ann. 14.28.1, comitia praetorum arbitrio senatus haberi solita,
quod acriore ambitu exarserant, princeps composuit, tris qui supra numerum
petebant legioni praeficiendo. The incident belongs to 60, and is evidence
for the reality of the contests for at least the praetorship among the
senatorial magistracies. The number of potential candidates for the praetor-
ship was always greater than the number of positions available, and those
not supported by the emperor would be the ones among whom competition
was most severe; Sherwin-White, Pliny, 119. Presumably the super-
numeraries would be eligible to restand for election at a future date. Ac-
cording to one view, however, the supernumerary appointments here were
not consolation prizes at all, but were made to the three best available
praetorian candidates because the military situations in Britain and the East
demanded solid appointments in 60: the reasons for the appointments
found in Suetonius and Tacitus reflect the government's wish not to broad-
cast the system of promotions ; D. C. A. Shotter, CQ 19 (1969), 372f. This
can be no more than a speculative guess unless the identities of the men in-
volved can be ascertained, which they cannot. Cf. also Levick, art. cit., 224.
consulatum in senos plerumque menses dedit

The fasti are by no means complete for Nero's reign, but Suetonius’
statement seems to be sound in essence. The model year is 59, when the or-
dinarii are attested in office in June, the suffecti in July and December.
Shorter periods of tenure are found, due to deaths in office, or resignations,
but “By and large, the rule is clearly established for a change of consuls at
the end of June, with occasional subdivision of these six-month periods, ap-
parently, into units of two months," G. B. Townend, The Consuls of
A.D. 69/70 in AJP 83 (1962), 113f, 114. For the fasii, Degrassi, Fasti ;
Smallwood, Documents, 4f; Historia 17 (1968), 384.
The text implies that the consular elections were subject to the control of
the emperor. Cf. Tac. Hist. 1.77, ceteri consulatus ex destinatione
Neronis ... mansere... quorum honoribus ne Vitellius quidem uictor in-
tercessit ; Jones, Studies, 48. The princeps! selection of consuls depended
on the exercise of auctoritas rather than of formali powers variously
described by scholars as commendatio or nominatio ; B. M. Levick, /mperial
Control of the Elections under the Early Principate in Historia 16 (1967),
207ff.
defunctoque circa Kal. lan. altero e consulibus

The man obviously died in the last few days of December before the next
pair of ordinarii took up office in January.
Canini Rebili uno die consulis

The man held office for one day in 45 B.C. on the death of Q. Fabius
Maximus. The appointment was the result of Caesarian influence, and
Cicero disapproved. Cic. Ad Fam. 7.30.1 ; Dio 43.46.2-4 ; Plut. Cic. 58.1 ;
cf. Suet. /ul. 76.2; MRR II 305 ; M. Gelzer, Caesar (1968), 311.
triumphalia ornamenta
After 19 B.C. a victorious genera! who was not a member of the imperial
family was not permitted to celebrate a triumph but was given instead the
triumphal ornaments, the toga picia, tunica palmata, corona laurea, and
scipio. He might also erect a statue of himself as triumphator. Dio, 54.24.8 ;
cf. 54.11.6, ascribes the origin of the award to Agrippa's persistent refusal
to hold the triumph already voted him, but the real reason is more likely to
have been Augustus' wish to diminish any potential threat to imperial
security that might arise from the ambitions of a successful military com-
mander. See A. A. Boyce, The Origin of the "Ornamenta Triumphalia'' in
CP 37 (1942), 130ff ; and cf. above, 41.
etiam quaestoriae dignitatis et nonnullis ex equestri ordine tribuit nec utique

de causa militari
Cf. Tac. Ann. 15.72.2, triumphale decus Petronio Turpiliano consulari,
Cocceio Neruae praetori designato, Tigellino praefecto praetorii tribuit,
Tigellinum et Neruam ita extollens ut super triumphalis in foro imagines
apud Palatium quoque effigies eorum sisteret. The historical context is the
sequel to the Pisonian conspiracy, and this was the only occasion under
Nero when the ornamenta were given. Suetonius is thus generalising from
one episode. Clearly Nerva must be the person quaestoriae dignitatis and
Tigellinus ex equestri ordine. Cf. A. E. Gordon, Univ. Calif. Pub. Class.
Arch. 2 (1952), Appendix Il, 320.
nec utique de causa militari

Cf. Tac. Ann. 15.72.2, quasi gesta bello. To Nero the discovery of Piso's
conspiracy was tantamount to a military success.
orationes ad senatum missas praeterito quaestoris officio per consulem

plerumque recitabat
The duty of the quaestores Caesaris was to read to the senate messages
from the emperor. At their elections they were candidati Augusti, and were
perhaps two in number ; Dig. 1.13.1.2 ; 4; Mommsen, DPR IV 272; cf.
Syme, Tacitus, 75 n.8, The quaestores Augusti tend to be men of birth”.
Members of the imperial family, however, might fulfill the duty of carrying
messages to the senate, as Germanicus for Augustus, and Titus for
Vespasian, Dio 56.26 ; Suet. Titus 6 ; cf. also ILS 308 ; HA Hadr.3.1. The
text cannot mean that quaestores Caesaris were not appointed ; observe /LS
99], with the cursus of Cn. Domitius Tullus, the adopted son of the orator
Cn. Domitius Afer (cf. PIR? D 167), in which the title quaest. Caes. Aug.
must almost certainly refer to Nero. Cf. also /RT 346 ; and s.21.2, where
the consular Cluvius Rufus is used as herald.
16.1 formam aedificiorum urbis nouam excogitauit et ut ante insulas ac

domos porticus essent, de quarum solariis incendia arcerentur
Cf. Tac. Ann 15.43.1, cohibitaque aedificiorum altitudine ac patefactis
areis additisque porticibus quae frontem insularum protegerent. Suetonius’
statement refers to the measures taken by the Neronian government after
the great fire of 64 (for which see below, 226ff). The distinction between
the commendable action, the replanning of the city, and the non-
commendable action, the burning of the city by Nero (s.38.1) is sufficient
for Suetonius to dissociate the two events in the biography.
Suetonius and Tacitus both emphasise the lack of urban planning in
Rome before the fire; s.38.1 ; Tac. Ann. 15.38.4. The danger of fire was
very real of course; Dio 55.26.4 ; Tac. Ann. 4.64 ; 6.45. But order and
space were the chief priorities of those who replanned the city as well as
forestalling fires in the future. Note that Suetonius extends provisions of the
colonnades from the insulae to domus also.
From the archaeological evidence for the reorganisation of the city it has
been concluded that the insulae now began to be reinforced with tufa and
brick facings, thereby replacing the much more hazardous timber framework
constructions. Remains of the new porticoes were seen on the Neronian
sacra uia, and similar types also appear at Ostia. The regular planning of
Ostia allows in general some estimate of the new Rome. See A. Boethius.
The Neronian "Nova Urbs" in Corolla Archaeologia (1932), 84(T ; Blake,
Roman Construction, 42f ; and further below. Nero's attitude towards the
replanning of Rome has been understood as a sign of increasing imperial
contro! over public works because there is no record of any concern for
private owners: D. E. Strong, BICS 15 (1968), 97ff.
easque sumplu suo extruxit

Cf. Tac. Ann. 15.43.2 ; Strong, art. cit., 104, who believes that the
phrase is not unusual because maintenance boards had been financed by the
fiscus since Claudius. But again it is indicative of an increase in imperial
direction of public works.
destinarat etiam Ostia tenus moenia promouere atque inde fossa mare ueteri
urbi inducere
This project has been associated with the building of the Domus Aurea
(for which see s.31) : the extension of the city to incorporate Ostia would,
as it were, compensate for the area of central Rome earmarked for the new
palace ; Meiggs, Ostia, 63. This is a good possibility but it breaks down if it
is correct to believe that the tense of destinarat means that this scheme an-
tedated the fire of 64 ; see below. However, Meiggs' further statement that
such a canal would have facilitated transportation of cargoes from Ostia to
Rome can stand. The project can then be viewed as a continuation of
Claudius’ development of the harbour at Ostia and also as a continuation of
the canal intended to run from Puteoli to Ostia (s.31.3) ; cf. Blake, Roman
Construction. 83f. But there is no need to believe, as Balland, MEFR 77
(1965), 369ff, that Suetonius exaggerates the importance of the scheme.
Nero's interest in the construction of inland waterways appears elsewhere ;
cf. below, 181f; s.19.2 ; as also the need to ensure the urban grain supply ;
Tac. Ann. 15.18.2. Since the latter text dates from 62 it is not impossible
that the present project should be assigned approximately to that time. The
scheme was probably abandoned, though, because of engineering difficulties
as elsewhere; cf. 181f. For Nero's coins which refer to Ostia see the
cautious remarks of A. A. Boyce. AJA 70 (1966), 65f.
ueteri urbi
Unlike Tacitus, Arn. 15.43.5, Suetonius does not refer to a noua urbs.
Nonetheless, A. Balland, "Nova urbs" et "Neapolis" ; Remarques sur les
projets urbanistiques de Néron in MEFR 77 (1965), 349ff, believes the
Tacitean phrase and Suetonius' opposite here refer to two separate topo-
graphical areas, the new city being the area devastated by the fire, the old
city that unaffected by the fire. There is some doubt, however, because there
is no contrast in Suetonius’ text itself between an ‘old’ and a ‘new’ city.
Two meanings are possible: (1) one can be argued from the tense of
destinarat above, which shouid mean that the Ostian project had been con-
templated before 64 (cf. Balland, art. cit., 378), the date of the great fire. In
this case the old city means Rome before 64, the city as it was before the
fire ; (2) alternatively, Suetonius may imply a contrast between the city in
Nero's time and in his own day. The standard translations of Suetonius are
of no help here. The Budé has “les vieux quartiers de Rome," free to say
the least, while the Penguin and Loeb translators conveniently omit the
problem altogether. Balland further suggests that Nero may have had plans
to rebuild Rome in mind before the fire (cf. 229f) and then implausibly
connects the new city of 64 with the theocratic doctrines of L'Orange and
Gagé, for which see below, 175ff; 288ff. as part of a new golden age.
16.2 Multa sub eo et animaduersa seuere et coercita nec minus instituta

In technical language Suetonius introduces his description of those
measures under Nero which he considers to have been the result of effective
government. The change from the active to passive voice is probably no

more than stylistic, though it might be taken to mean that Suetonius be-
lieved Nero's personal responsibility for these actions to have been slight ;
cf. above, 15 n.14. But it should not be forgotten that legislation enacted by
the senate might still be at the instigation of the princeps, either formally or
informally. Note, for example, Gaius /nstit. 2.197, auctore Nerone Caesare
senatus consultum factum est, quo cautum est... ; cf. Gaius Instit. 2.218.
adhibitus sumptibus modus

No other source mentions a sumptuary measure under Nero, but there is
an item in s.32.3 which may be of relevance here. A ban was imposed on
the purchase of certain dyes, which cannot have been local or even Italian
products. The motive may have been to restrict an outflow of cash from
Rome to the sources of supply of luxury goods when a concentration of cash
within the capital was desired. Cf. Tac. Ann. 3.53.5, and see below, 193.
publicae cenae ad sportulas redactae

The client-patron relationship of the early empire laid on the latter an
obligation to consider the. other's material welfare. This was usually fulfilled
by the provision of food. Friedlander, IV 77f, showed that in Domitian's
time, prior to his reintroduction of formal meals (cenae rectae), sportulae
meant either informal provisions of food or else cash substitutes (cf. Mart.
3.30). He proposed that this bipartite system was the result of Nero's action
here. But since the sportula already under Claudius could be described as a
subita condictaque cenula, it seems likelier that Nero just introduced the
cash alternative ; Suet. Claud. 21.4. Cf. as possible support of this Co-
lumella's references to mercenarii salutatoris and cotidianum illud tributum,
De Re Rust. | Praef. 9 ; 12. The standard amount received by the client was
perhaps centum... quadrans , Mart. 3.7. See Friedlander, 4c. ; DS s.v.
‘sporta’; Braithwaite ad Suet. Vesp. 19.1.
interdictum ne quid in popinis cocti praeter legumina aut holera ueniret, cum
antea. nullum non obsonii genus proponeretur
For similar measures under previous emperors cf. Suet. Tib. 34 ; Claud.
38.2 ; cf. 40.1 ; Dio 60.6.7. The danger was that cookshops might become
centres of disorder. Cf. B. Baldwin, Ancient Society 3 (1972), 155. For the
date, 62, cf. Dio 62.14.2.
popinis
Establishments which essentially sold food but which did not lodge
guests ; T. Kleberg, Hóteis, restaurants et cabarets dans l'antiquité romaine
(1957), 16f.
afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis nouae ac male-

ficae
In 64 after the great fire the Christians in Rome first suffered at the
hands of the Roman authorities. Here attention is directed only to con-
sideration of Suetonius' brief item. For wider discussion the following select
bibliography can be consulted: T. D. Barnes, Legislation against the
Christians in JRS 58 (1968), 32ff; J. Beaujeu, L'Incendie de Rome en 64
et les Chrétiens in Latomus 19 (1960), 65ff ; 29 1ff ; W. H. C. Frend, Mar-
tyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (1965) ; H. Last, The Study of
the Persecutions in JRS 27 (1937), 80ff ; H. Janne, Magiciens et religions
dans l'ordre romain in Latomus | (1937), 37ff ; A. G. Roos, Nero and the
Christians in Symbolae van Oven (1946), 297ff ; A. N. Sherwin-White, The
Early Persecutions and Roman Law in JTS 3 (1952), 119ff (= Pliny, Ap-
pendix 5); G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, Why were the early Christians per-
secuted? in Past and Present 26 (1963), 6ff (cf. 27 [1964] for the debate
between Ste. Croix and Sherwin-White) ; H. Grégoire, Les Persécutions
dans l'empire romain? (1964).
afflicti suppliciis Christiani

Suetonius’ notice is important for offsetting the common idea of Ne-
ronian 'persecution' of the Christians. He is concerned primarily in s.16.2
with measures taken to safeguard public order and restraint. Hence the
commendable quality of the present item. The administrative tone of the
vocabulary in this section, as also s.17, supports the contention that urban
tranquillity is the major idea here, and also makes the emendation of the
emotive afflicti to the more neutral and common affecti a strong probability
(for the full argument see CR 22 [1972], 9f). Whether it is correct to speak
of a persecution from the accounts of Tacitus (Ann. 15.44) and later
Christian writers, the viewpoint in this text must represent a widespread
feeling both in Nero's and Suetonius’ time, namely, that a troublesome
element in Roman urban life had been satisfactorily dealt with in 64. This is
perhaps more possible than to speak of Suetonius’ detestation of the
Christians (Ste. Croix, art. cit., 8), for which there is no evidence other
than the continuing phrase of the present notice which should not be press-
ed so far.
The punishments meted out to the Christians in 64 are graphically

recounted by Tacitus, Ann. 15.44.5-6. Here, however, the artistic purpose
of the author should not be lost sight of ; cf. B. Walker, The ‘Annals’ of
Tacitus (1952), 27 ; and Beaujeu, art. cit., 311, who believes these punish-
ments to be used by Tacitus to illustrate Nero's monstrous character. The
basic element that needs to be extracted is the threefold nature of the
penalty, bestiae, crux, and crematio ; these forms indeed are laid down as
capital penalties for the practice of sacra impia nocturnaue and for those
magicae artis consciae ; Paul. Sent. 5.23.15 ; 17 ; cf. Dig. 48.8.3-5 ; and
for arson, Dig. 48.19.28.12 ; cf. Sherwin-White, Pliny, 698 ; 785 ; Garn-
sey, Social Status, 125ff. Although the codification of these laws is later
than the first century there is no reason why correlation with the Tacitus
details should not be made ; it may be assumed that the Christians belonged
to that class of people later categorised as Aumiliores.
It is noticeable that Suetonius does not connect the treatment of the
Christians with the great fire (cf. the replanning of the city afterwards;
above, 100), nor does he include this item in the exemplification of Nero's
saeuitia (s.36), which might have been expected. This is not to deny that
the death penalties of the Christians were not associated with the fire. The
Tacitean account makes it clear that some must have died on the charge of
incendiarism. But it was the unreasonableness of the superstitio and its at-
tendant flagitia which were the main grounds for indictment ; cf. Sherwin-
White, Pliny, 781. This might well have been Suetonius’ own opinion too,
and it is worth emphasising again that the terms of the presentation here are
useful as a statement of contemporary opinion. Yet they also suggest that
not all accounts of the great fire incorporated the Christians, particularly
since Dio has no mention of them anywhere.
It is doubtful that the measures against the Christians under Nero set an
enforceable precedent for later times, despite Tertull. Ad. Nar. 1.7 ; see Ste.
Croix, art. cit., 14.
genus hominum supersitionis nouae ac maleficae

The suppression of dangerous foreign superstitions at Rome has a history
into which the events of 64 fit neatly; see especially Last, art. cit.,
discussing Jews, Druids, and the cult of Isis. Since the Chrisuans were
known beforehand to be practitioners of undesirable rites, atrocia aut
pudenda, Tac. Ann. 15.44.4, their treatment had some regular basis from
this angle. So the fate of the Christians may have been commendable to
some because of the distasteful nature of the superstitio. Contrast, however,
Ste. Croix, art. cit., 27, stressing the " exclusiveness" of Christianity with
which the Roman authorities had not previously contended. The adjective
maleficus increases the distrustful character of the Christians by introducing
the notion of magical practices ; cf. Tac. Ann. 2.69.5, erutae humanorum
corporum reliquiae, carmina et deuotiones ... semusti cineres ac tabo obliti
aliaque malefica, quis creditur animas numinibus infernis sacrari. It is the
aversion of this threat which is important. The adjective noua is also of
note : it helps make clear that it was only at this period that the Christians
were first distinguished as a separate sect at Rome. The earlier confusion
with the Jews is reflected at Suet. Claud. 25.4, if indeed the Chrestus there
is a reference to Christ.
uetiti quadrigariorum lusus

Otherwise unattested. The emphasis is again on public order.
pantomimorum factiones cum ipsis simul relegatae

Cf. Tac. Ann. 13.25.4. The pantomimi were expelled from Italy in 56 af-
ter disturbances among their supporters in the theatres, supposedly fostered
by Nero. But they were back again by 60 ; Tac. Ann. 14.21.7. On the ex-
pulsion cf. Garnsey, Social Status, 119, and on associations of actors,
variously collegia or societates, cf. E. J. Jory, Hermes 98 (1970). 224ff. Cf.
also above, 83.
17. aduersus falsarios tunc primum repertum

The measures which follow against falsum may have resulted from an
important episode in 61 in which at least five men of senatorial and
equestrian rank were convicted in the senate of forging the will of an old
and wealthy senator ; Tac. Ann. 14.40-4]. On the case see Garnsey, Social
Status, 27ff. [n association with events of 55 Dio, 61.7.6, also mentions
that Nero took action against fa/sarii but it is possible that this is an
allusion to 61 and not to a separate issue. In spite of Garnsey's hesitations,
op. cit., 30 n.1, the scandalous nature of the case in 61, which is made plain
enough at Tac. Ann. 14.40.1, seems the most reasonable immediate cause
for the legislation recorded by Suetonius. It was passed perhaps by senatus
consultum rather than by imperial edict ; cf. Tac. Ann. 14.41.3 ; Paul. Sent.
5.25.6.
Against this argument for the dating, however. stands a document drawn
up in accordance with Neronian legislation — three holes in its margin for
binding (see below, 106) — which appears to date from 60 ; Smallwood,
Documents, no. 433 (a). The consuls mentioned in this contract are M.
Manilius Vopiscus and C. Velleius Paterculus, most probably the Paterculus

and Vopiscus of Sen. NQ 7.28.3, a passage that refers to a comet known to
have appeared in 60 ; Tac. Ann. 14.22. But a military diploma which refers
to Nero as cos. IIII, is dated with L. Velleius Paterculus and Cn. Pedanius
Salinator as consuls; JLS 1987 (=Smallwood, Documents, no. 296).
Nero's fourth consulship was in 60 ; see above, 91f ; so this second pair of
consuls may have been suffects in 60 (for the ordinarii, Smallwood,
Documents, 5). The diploma, however, may be misdated because its
reference to trib. pot. VII could place it in 61 when Nero might still be
referred to as consul for the fourth time; cf. M. Hammond, MAAR 15
(1938), 32 ; above, 65. Certainty is impossible, but it is conceivable that
the comet to which Seneca refers is not that of 60, but one seen the follow-
ing year; cf. R. S. Rogers, TAPA 84 (1953), 240. Rogers shows that
neither comet was visible for six months, as Seneca says his comet was,
although the one in 60 was observed longer. But the argument that the ap-
pearance of 61 was not that of a comet at all but of a nova (Bickneli,
Latomus 28 [1969], 1075), does not allow for the fact that Latin has no
separate terminology for the two phenomena; cf. TLL s.v. cometes." if
Vopiscus and Paterculus were to be assigned to the second half of 61, the
other pair, Salinator and L. Paterculus might then belong to 60. Neither
pair is mentioned in the literary sources apart from the item in Seneca ; for
the epigraphic material see Degrassi, Fasti, 16f ; and for an early argument
in support of 61 as the date of at least part of the Neronian enactment here,
Zangemeister, CIL IV Supp., 278.
ne tabulae nisi pertusae ac ter lino per foramina traiecto obsignarentur

Cf. Paul. Sent. 5.25.6, amplissimus ordo decreuit eas tabulas, quae
publici uel priuati contractus scripturam continent, adhibitis testibus ita
signari, ut in summa marginis ad mediam partem perforatae triplici lino con-
stringantur atque impositae supra linum cerae signa imprimantur, ul ex-
teriori scripturae fidem interior seruet, which seems to identify itself with
the present text, though see more cautiously J. Crook, Law and Life of
Rome (1967), 81. All contracts were covered by this provision, not just
wills. The precaution meant that the witnesses of a contract saw only the
contents of the scriptura exterior. If tampering with the document were
suspected the seals could be broken and the open copy compared with the
sealed version. For examples of contracts drawn up in this way see Small-
wood, Documents, nos. 433 (a), and (b).
obsignarentur
Seven witnesses were required for the obsignatio of wills, Gaius /nstit.
2.119 ; 147.
cautum ut testamentis primae duae cerae testatorum modo nomine inscripto

uacuae signaturis ostenderentur
The will was to consist of three copies bound together. The witnesses
(signaturis) guaranteed in good faith the contents of the concealed pro-
visions of the will by attesting the identity of the person making the will.
They did not see the will's contents, to which new clauses could not be ad-
ded without the seals being broken beforehand. Cf. M. Kaser, Das
Rómische Privatrecht Y (1955), 204.
testamentis
The formulation of a will secundum tabulas was designed to circumvent
the rigmarole involved in the earlier mancipatory and nuncupatory
procedures. The method was in use by Cicero's time ; cf. Verr. II 1.117. Its
success depended on the praetor's guarantee of receipt of bequests by heirs
named in the will; cf. Gaius /nsit. 2.119; Jolowicz, Historical In-
troduction?, 248f.
ac ne qui alieni testamenti scriptor legatum sibi ascriberet

A similar measure is ascribed also to Claudius: diuus Claudius edicto
praecepit adiciendum legi Corneliae ut, si quis, cum alterius testamentum
uel codicillos scriberet, legatum sibi sua manu scripserit, proinde teneatur ac
si commisisset in legem Corneliam ..., Dig. 48.10.15. pr. There are thus two
possibilities : Suetonius has placed this information in the wrong biography
or, more probably in view of the events of 61 (above, 105), Nero reaffirmed
Claudius' ruling. In either case the action reinforced the provision of the sc.
Libonianum, probably of A.D. 16, quo prohibemur nobis uel his, quos in
potestate habemus, adscribere legatum, Dig. 48.10.14. pr. (cf. 48.10.22) by
making offenders liable to the penalties of the Sullan /ex Cornelia de falsis.
The second alternative is to be preferred also because of similar or related
enactments which belong to Nero’s reign. The sc. Neronianum made
provision for the succession of /egata not in the possession of the testator at
the time the legacy was made ; Gaius Institut. 2.197 ; cf. 2.218 ; F. Schulz,
Classical Roman Law (1951), 318ff; Kaser, op. cit, 1 623. The sc.
Trebellianum, most likely belonging to the second half of 56, involved
regulations on fideicommissa ; Gaius Instit. 2.253 ; Schulz, op.cit., 327f ;
Kaser, op. cit., 1 634f. Responsibility for the two senatus consulta has ten-
tatively been attributed to Senecan influence in the early part of Nero's
reign, and in particular to the lawyer Proculus who may have been both a
compatriot and associate of Seneca ; thus A. M. Honoré, Proculus in Tijd-
schrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 30 (1962). 473ff. The sc. Neronianum
should belong to one of Nero's consular years, 55, 57, 58, or 60 (above,
91f), but the introduction to Gaius /nstit. 2.197, auctore Nerone Caesare
senatus consultum factum est, quo cautum est ..., could be taken to mean
personal instigation of the measure by Nero, though expert advice can still
be presupposed ; cf. above, 101f. There is no argument from the context of
ss.16.2-17 that Suetonius is preoccupied with the first half of Nero's reign ;
the item on the Christians is sufficient indication of that. So, while
Honoré's view cannot be disproved, it is not obligatory to make the con-
nection with Seneca as a matter of course.
item ut litigatores pro patrociniis certam iustamque mercedem, pro subsellis

nullam omnino darent
Augustus reinforced the provisions of the /ex Cincia (204 B.C.) by which
advocates were forbidden to receive payment for professional services ; Dio
54.18.2 ; Tac. Ana. 11.5.3. Claudius, however, realising the justification of
a claim for a fee of some kind, established a ceiling figure of HS10,000
which an advocate might accept as payment; Tac. Ann. 11.7.8. This sur-
vived in at least a nominal form until the time of Pliny ; cf. Epp. 5.9.4 ;
Sherwin-White, Pliny, 337. But the fortunes that were made from advocacy
show that neither Augustus' nor Claudius' enactments were adhered to ; cf.
Tac. Dial. 8 ; Plin. Epp. 2.20.13 ; Mart. 2.30 ; 8.17 ; 17. The problem was
that essentially of reconciling the equity of the advocates' claims to fees
with the danger of bribery for rigged verdicts. The sc. of 54, ne quis ad
causam orandam mercede aut donis emeretur, Tac. Ann. 13.5.1, looks like a
return to the Augustan position, more or less, and seems to have been the
enactment of the senate under its own steam ; cf. Koestermann ad Tac. /.c.
Furneaux, ad Tac. /.c., appears to have thought the measure was intended
to prevent the conclusion of bargains before cases came on, as if the
Claudian measure had been rescinded, which can hardly have been so. It
was certainly an error to dismiss as a ‘confused or mistaken" version of
Tac. Ann 13.5.1 the present text of Suetonius, which should, as Furneaux
haif-heartedly allowed, be a completely separate enactment. The text calls
for a fixed and fair fee, implying that excessive fees had recently been in
evidence, and must be a reenactment of the Claudian measure at some date
after 54. Hence the attention of the zealous praetor at Plin. Epp. 5.9 to the
senatus consultum according to which litigants were compelled to swear

nihil se ob aduocationem cuiquam dedisse promisisse cauisse before their
cases were heard, and which allowed pecuniam dumtaxat decem milium dare
afterwards. Cf. Sherwin-White ad Plin. /.c. ; E. P. Parks, Roman Rhetorical
Schools (1954), 56ff; J. Crook, Law and Life of Rome (1967), 90f.
praebente aerario gratuita

Thus the payments would be the responsibility of the head officials of the
aerarium, after 56 praefecti of praetorian rank ; Tac. Ann. 13.28.5 ; Dio
60.24.1-2 ; F. Millar, The Aerarium and its Officials under the Empire in
JRS 54 (1964), 33ff. The present text, unnoticed by Millar, suggests that
the aerarium in some way became liable for the costs (other than those of
advocates' fees) of trials.
utque rerum actu ab aerario causae ad forum ac reciperatores transferrentur

Cases involving the aerarium were now taken from the jurisdiction of the
praefecti aerarii and handed over to the praetor ; Millar, JRS 54 (1964),
36. For the hearing by reciperatores, an alternative jury to the panel of
iudices, see Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary, 669 ; Crook, op. cit.. 79. The
text is a rare indication that cases which came before the praefecti aerarii
were actually heard at the aerarium itself before this enactment. |t is not
contradicted by Plin. Pan. 36, quam iuuat cernere. aerarium. silens et
quietum, et quale ante delatores erat, which should imply only that in-
formers continued to bring charges at the treasury after the Neronian
measure, but not that cases were still heard there. The enactment seems to
have been intended to diminish, in appearance at least imperial en-
croachment in the sphere of public finances. Reciperatores could not be
selected by the princeps. in contrast to praefecti.
et ut omnes appellationes a iudicibus ad senatum fierent

The text shows that appeals in civil suits before the praetor's court were
made against the /udicium of the jury. not while the case was in iure. Cf. in
this respect Tac. Ann. 14.28.2, (Nero) auxitque patrum honorem statuendo
ut, qui a priuatis iudicibus ad senatum prouocauissent, eiusdem pecuniae
periculum facerent cuius si qui imperatorem appellarent. |t implies that
receipt of appeals by the princeps was not unusual; and indeed arrange-
ments for the handling of such appeals had been made by Augustus ; Suet.
Aug. 33.3. The very idea of appeal from the praetor's court, however, may
have been an innovation of the Principate, for under the Republic no firm
evidence exists to show appeals in operation ; Crook, op. cit., 83; contra
Jones, Studies, 81ff. The enactment here has been regarded as a "mis-
conceived" version of the Tacitean piece above, Furneaux ad Tac. ic. ; cf.
Koestermann ad Tac. /.c., but there are no distinctive verbal parallels be-
tween the two passages and there is no real reason to interpret terseness as
misunderstanding. Moreover, Tac. Ann. 14.28.2 appears to deal with an im-
perial enactment, Suetonius with an sc. Jones, Studies, 78, believed the text
to be an "exaggerated version" of Nero's promise at his accession that con-
sulum tribunalibus Italia et publicae prouinciae adsisterent ; Tac. Ann.
13.4.3 (cf. Koestermann ad Ann. 14.28 ; see also Cal. Sic. Bucol. 1.69ff) ;
but since this implies invention or deliberate falsification by Suetonius it is
better to regard the passage as a statement consistent with the content of
Ann. 14.28.2 but which is independent of it and probably derived from a
separate source. If that is so, by 60, the date of Ann. 14.28.2, clearly Nero
had received appeals and the present measure had been disregarded. The
fact that a poena appellationis had already been instituted (by Nero?) could
mean an attempt to reduce the number of appeals to the princeps. As with
the previous item (above, 109) this law then was seemingly concerned with
a diminution of imperial influence.
18. etiam ex Britannia deducere exercitum cogitauit, nec nisi uerecundia,

ne obtrectare parentis gloriae uideretur, destitit
General Bibliography : E. Birley, Britain under Nero ; the Significance of
Q. Veranius in DUJ (1952), 88ff - Roman Britain and the Roman Army
(1953), 1ff; D. R. Dudley, G. R. Webster, The Rebellion of Boudicca
(1962) ; S. S. Frere, Britannia (1967) ; A. E. Gordon, Quintus Veranius,
Consul A.D. 49 in University of California Publications in Classical Ar-
chaeology 2 (1952), 231ff ; E. J. Phillips, The Emperor Gaius' abortive In-
vasion of Britain in Historia 19 (1970), 369ff ; I. A. Richmond, The Four
"Coloniae" of Roman Britain in Arch. Journ. 103 (1946), 57ff; C. E.
Stevens, The Will of Q. Veranius in CR n.s. 1 (1951), 4ff ; G. R. Webster,
Military Situations in Britain A.D. 43-71 in Britannia | (1970), 179fF.
Suetonius" failure to provide a date for the proposed withdrawal has
provoked various attempts to correlate such a move with one of the varying
military situations in Britain during Nero's principate. Richmond, art. cit.,
61 n.32, believed that the idea of withdrawal belonged to 61 and resulted
from the crisis of the rebellion of Boudicca ; cf. Frere, op. cit., 85 ; below,
236f. With objections to this Stevens, art.cit., subsequently saw Nero's read-
ing of the will of Q. Veranius, in which the former governor of Britain
claimed that he would have been able to fulfill his mission had he lived two
years longer, as the beginning of a forward policy in Britain and postulated

58, the year of Veranius' death, as the time of the contemplated aban-
donment. Next, paying more attention to the capabilities and rapid career of
Veranius and concluding that his previous distinction before the British
command presupposed at the time of his appointment an expansionist
policy on the government's part, Birley, art. cit., argued for a date before
57, the time when Veranius was sent to Britain. The latter view has
generally prevailed. Most recently, for instance, Webster, art. cit., has writ-
ten that the proposed evacuation is to be seen in the context of a weak
military position in Britain after the governorship of P. Ostorius Scapula
and during the early tenure of Didius Gallus. However, this still leaves an
interval from Nero's accession of three years until Veranius' appointment,
and it may be possible to delimit it considerably.
Archaeologists have mostly concentrated on the notion of a withdrawal
in itself and have tended to disregard or underestimate the motive for the
withdrawal attributed here to Nero by Suetonius, namely, Nero's concern
for Claudius’ reputation. It must be pointed out that the whole item in
Suetonius receives no confirmation from any other literary source, but if
taken as genuine the clause containing the motive straightway invalidates
the theory of a policy change dependant upon fancy (Stevens, art. cit., 6). It
is valuable, therefore, to find out at what stage of Nero's reign concern for
Claudius’ reputation was politically important. The answer is fairly obvious.
At Nero’s accession Claudius was deified; Nero himself pronounced
Claudius' funeral oration ; and a temple for the new god was begun on the
Caelian ; see above, 68. [n the same period, moreover, it has been shown
that one of the tribes newly reconstituted at Alexandria was labelled
philoclaudius (Schumann, 12 n.22), while the proposal in the senate that
quaestors designate not be obliged to provide gladiatorial shows met the
hostility of Agrippina on the ground that a Claudian measure would thereby
be rescinded ; Tac. Ann. 13.5.1-2. This evidence must be taken to signify
that in the early stages of the reign a demonstration of filial pietas was
essential ; cf. above, 66f; Dudley and Webster, op. cit., 46, even if at the
same time there was a promise to abstain from the ills of the Claudian
régime ; Tac. Ann. 13.4.2 ; cf. above, 71. Insistence on this theme could
serve to facilitate acceptance of the new dispensation and confer on it an air
of legitimacy at a critical time when the supporters of Britannicus might
still react against the "fait accompli" with which they were being presented
despite the careful preparatory work of Agrippina ; cf. Tac. Ann. 12.69.5.
The situation was tense, yet it is surely against this background, at the very
beginning of the reign, that the present text makes most sense. The
acquisition of Britain had been a spectacular affair (cf. /LS 216 = Small-
wood, Documents, no. 43[b]). in particular restoring Roman prestige after
Caligula's fiasco in northern Gaul, and although the military position at the
accession under Didius Gallus might have been precarious (Webster, art.
cit., 192) rejection of the Claudian achievement could well have meant a
loss of credibility for the new government. The final decision to appoint
Veranius certainly denoted that expansionism was to be pursued after all, cf.
Frere, op. cit., 85 ; Birley, art. cit., 5, but for the time being the cautious
policy followed by Claudius through Scapula and Gallus prevailed.
It appears unlikely that any of the accession items above derived from
Nero personally. They were prompted either by Agrippina or else Burrus
and Seneca. The funeral oration was Seneca's work, and the idea of the
Claudian temple came from Agrippina ; so too perhaps the consecration it-
self; cf. above, 67f. The same may be presumed for the coinage ;
Sutherland, Coinage, 152f. Plainly then, this is a policy on the part of the
government and has nothing to do with the personal attitude of Nero him-
self. This accounts for the statements at Plin. Pan. 11 and Suet. Claud. 45
which imply a lack of respect by Nero for the deification. Cf. below, 197.
There is then, no other time during Nero's reign when such attention to
Claudius’ reputation is so marked.
So it may be suggested that the intended evacuation should be assigned
to the accession phase of the reign. This view will then obviate the difficulty
felt by those who advocate 61 as the date of withdrawal. In support of the
Boudiccan date Warmington, 79, states, "The appeal by his advisers to the
reputation of Claudius looks unconvincing but it is not impossible, since
Claudius made so much of his campaign in Britain that its loss would have
seriously discredited his successor." The "appeal," however, is convincing
if attached to the context of 54/5. But what explanation is there of the in-
terval from the accession until Veranius’ appointment?
At the time of Claudius’ death Agrippina clearly dominated events ;
Sutherland, Coinage. 148; above, 69. Given her concern with the
deification and the quaestorian item it could well have been her decision to
continue existing policy in Britain. Her interference in another aspect of
foreign policy is known, Tac. Amn. 13.5.3, and a further clue may be seen in
the suggestion that a coin belonging to 54/5 with portraits on the obverse
of Agrippina and Nero depicts on the reverse a triumphal chariot in order to
celebrate the Claudian conquest ; Mattingly, BMC I cixxiii ; 201. If this is
true it lends strong support to the present proposal. And even more so if
Agrippina controlled what appeared on the coinage. During the course of
55. however. Agrippina's power declined and by $56 disappeared; cf.

Sutherland, Coinage. 155. The record of military developments in Britain
from 54 to 57 is only imperfectly known, both from the literary and ar-
chaeological points of view, but the Roman position seems gradually to
have improved ; cf. Frere, op. cit., 83ff. The appointment of Veranius will
have been made, then, in recognition of this, and will have been contrived
by Seneca and Burrus ; cf. Dio 62.2.1. The new policy was thus begun. The
withdrawal plan was apparently debated in the winter of 54/5, perhaps ad-
vocated by Seneca and Burrus — or even Nero himself — and Agrippina's
intention to toe the Claudian line prevailed. Seneca and Burrus were finally
swayed to a policy of expansionism as a result of the consolidation achieved
by Didius Gallus ; contra Webster, art. cit., 192. The immediate cause for
withdrawal may have been the weakened position on the eastern frontier,
since in the winter of 54/5 Armenia lay in Parthian hands ; Tac. Ann.
13.6.1; cf. Frere, op. cit., 85.
This reconstruction of policy debate must remain speculative. But ob-
servation of the context of this passage might offer a clue as to its re-
liability. It appears among the commendable acta of the reign. Does then
Suetonius applaud the idea of the abandonment? Possibly he favoured the
idea contained in the general statement with which s.18 begins, that ex-
pansionism was to be avoided. This would accord with Augustus' dictate to
Tiberius not to increase the frontiers of the empire ; Nero had, after all,
promised to rule ex Augusti praescripto; $.10.1. Possibly there is an
allusion to Hadrianic developments in Britain; cf. Syme, Tacitus, 490 ;
Townend, CQ n.s. 9 (1959), 292f (though it is hard to see how Suetonius
can be critical of Nero here in light of s.19.3 as Townend suggests). Yet
most likely it is the display of uerecundia of which Suetonius approves ; cf.
s.10.1.
Ponti modo regnum concedente Polemone

Cf. HA Aurel. 21.11 ; Aur. Vict. De Caes. 5.2; Anon. Epit. de Caes.
5.4 ; Eutrop. 7.14.5 ; Hier. Chron. 2081 bc. The late sources all essentially
follow Suetonius.
The area of land incorporated within the Empire c.64, henceforth known
as Pontus Polemoniacus, covered the coast of the Black Sea from Amisus to
Colchis and extended inland across the mountainous region as far as the
river Lycus. The former kingdom of Polemo II, who had ruled as vassal
since 38, was added to the existing province of Cappadocia in all pro-
bability. The date of the event is deduced from certain coins produced by
the Pontic cities which inaugurate a new era; see RE I col. 643 (Kubit-
schek). The annexation thus has to be viewed as an attempt to consolidate
the achievements in Armenia of Cn. Domitius Corbulo by securing the line
of military sea-communications from the Propontis to Trapezus and allow-
ing descent into Armenia from a secure northern frontier. See F. Cumont,
Anatolian Studies Presented to Sir William Ramsay (1923), 109ff;
Rostovtzeff, BSA 22 (1916/17), l2f; Henderson, 226; CAH X 774;
Magie, RRAM, S561ff ; 1417ff; Jones, CERP?, 169ff ; for the coins, Head
Hist. Num.? 497ff. The royal cohort of Polemo was given citizenship and
the royal fleet converted into what later became known as the classis Pon-
tica ; Tac. Hist. 3.47 ; cf. Jos. BJ 2.367 referring to a force of three
thousand soldiers and forty ships in the area. The fate of Polemo is
unknown, Magie, op. cit., 1418, but it is clear that he had but little choice
in acquiescing to the acquisition of his kingdom by Rome. Suetonius’ con-
cedente, therefore, is perhaps too mild a term.
item Alpium defuncto Cottio in prouinciae formam redegit

The date of the transformation of the Alpine region known as the Cottian
Alps into a procuratorial province is not known. Estimates range from 58
(Henderson, 100) to 64 (CAH X 713). Jerome, /.c., gives 65, for unknown
reasons. Nonetheless, if the annexation is understood as part of a policy to
achieve complete unification of Italy, cf. Sherwin-White, The Roman
Citizenship? (1973), 242, in which the grant of the ius Latii in 63 to the
inhabitants of the Maritime Alps is also considered, Tac. Ann. 15.32.1, then
Jerome's estimate may well be roughly correct. The title of king had been
conferred on M. Iulius Cottius by Claudius when his inherited kingdom was
enlarged in 44 ; Dio 60.24.2. Nero simply waited for the death of the client
before annexation; there were no pressing grounds as with Pontus
Polemoniacus (above). For Cottius, P/R? I 275.
19.1 Peregrinationes duas omnino suscepit, Alexandrinam et Achaicam

For the Alexandrian visit cf. Tac. Ann. 15.36.2 ; the date is 64. It is
possible, however, to establish a more precise date for the contemplated
visit than Tacitus’ notice allows. At the time of the proposed journey
Caecina Tuscus was in office as prefect of Egypt, and he is last recorded in
office on 17th July, 65, his tenure dating from Sth September, 63 ; O.
Reinmuth, A working list of the prefects of Egypt in BASP 4 (1967), 82 ; cf.
below, 215f. The expedition could not have begun until the sailing season
opened, which automatically sloughs off the winter months from con-
sideration. And in the Tacitean version the postponement falls between the
‘abandoned visit to Greece’ (on which see below, 128f) and the fire of 64
which belongs to mid-July ; see below, 232. Tac. Amn. 15.36.1-2 implies
that the Alexandrian visit was mooted soon after Nero's return to Rome
from Beneventum where he had attended an entertainment provided by
Vatinius and that the whole affair was quickly over. That this was not the
case can be inferrred from the knowledge that Caecina Tuscus constructed
baths especially in anticipation of Nero's impending arrival, which demands
a considerable interval of time ; s.35.5. In other words, Nero must have in-
formed his prefect well in advance of planned arrival, say, perhaps, about
the beginning of May, but the arrival itself could only have been meant for
the summer of 64 once the necessary allowances have been made for
preparations and travel. The result is that the expedition was a much more
seriously contemplated project than either the accounts of Tacitus or
Suetonius indicate. Cf. Schumann, 14ff.
For the visit to Greece see below, 137ff.
sed Alexandrina ipso profectionis die destitit turbatus religione simul ac

periculo. nam cum circumitis templis in aede Vestae resedisset, consurgenti
el primum lacinia obhaesit, dein tanta oborta caligo est, ut dispicere non
posset
Cf. Tac. Ann. 15.36.3, illic ueneratus deos, cum Vestae quoque templum
inisset, repente cunctos per artus tremens, seu numine exterrente, seu
facinorum recordatione numquam timore uacuus, deseruit inceptum ... For a
similar story see s.34.4, and on religio see s.56. But superstition may be
irrelevant ; see below, 128f. For the temple of Vesta, Platner, Ashby, Topo-
graphical Dictionary, s.v. 'Vesta, Aedes'.
19.2 in Achaia Isthmum perfodere adgressus

The inclusion of this item in the favourable section of the biography is
again of significance. Caligula's similar plan to cut a canal through the
Corinthian isthmus also met with Suetonius’ approval; Calig. 21-22.
Clearly the project was not undertaken lightly, a tradition preserved by ps.-
Luc. Nero 2, since when in 1881/2 a modern canal was constructed traces
of the Neronian effort were discovered and showed careful planning before
labour began. The acuteness of the ancient engineers' (Egyptians? cf. ps.-
Luc. Nero 4) planning is revealed by the fact that Nero's canal was to have
followed exactly the same line as its modern counterpart. Although the
source is not unimpeachable, there is some evidence to suggest that a desire
to facilitate commerce lay behind the project; ps.-Luc. Nero | — and in-
deed, this could be associated with the financial benefit bestowed by Nero
on the Greeks through the liberation of Greece which brought an attendant
abolition of tax payments ; see below, 146 ; cf. Cizek, 216. The serious
nature of the scheme should be compared with the Avernus project, also left
incomplete ; see below, 181f and cf. above, 70f.
The extent of visible Neronian remains at the time of the modern con-
struction prompted the proposal that some three to four months' work had
been expended on the canal; B. Gerster, L'Isthme de Corinthe in BCH 8
(1884), 225ff. The only ancient testimony on this issue is again ps.-Luc.
Nero 4, though textual difficulties add to its unreliability (seventy-five
days ?). The project was perhaps abandoned when Nero left Greece in 67 or.
more likely, during the crisis of 68, since a commemorative relief of the
planned canal was found at the western end of the project ; cf. C. C. Ver-
meule, Roman Imperial Art in Greece and Asia Minor (1968), 211 ; 434.
The inauguration ceremony should therefore properly belong to 67.
For the archaeological evidence on the Neronian canal see Gerster, art.
cit.
Caligula and Nero were not the first rulers in antiquity to have con-
templated piercing the Isthmus. Pliny, NH 4.10, observing that the sea
passage around the Peloponnese was difficult for ships too large to be tran-
sported across the Isthmus by iand, notes that Demetrius Poliorcetes and
Julius Caesar had similar ambitions, and to his list may be added the
Corinthian tyrant Periander and the sophist Herodes Atticus ; cf. Strabo
1.3.11 ; Suet. /ul. 44.3 ; Plut. Caes. 58.4 ; Diog. Laert. 1.7.99 ; Philost. VS
2.1.551ff. Nero, however, was the only one actually to have begun work on
the project.
To provide the necessary labour force for the excavation some six
thousand Jewish prisoners were sent by Vespasian from Galilee in Sep-
tember, 67 ; Jos. BJ 3.10.10, this perhaps being the fact behind Dio's
exaggeration, 63.16.2, xai modu nAnbos ávüpu nv éni toto tO Epyov xai &x
tev GAlwy thav uevenéujaro. According to ps.-Luc. Nero 3, soldiers and
prisoners also participated in the work. Possibly the soldiers alluded to are
the praetorians mentioned by Suetonius (below). The starting point of ps.-
Luc.'s dialogue is the participation in the work of the philosopher Musonius
Rufus, exiled in 65 to Gyaros (cf. below, 261) and the same tradition ap-
pears also in Philost. Vir. Apoll. 5.19. Although both items require cautious
handling, it is perhaps not entirely fanciful to believe that certain political
prisoners were conscripted for work on the canal ; cf. J. Korver, Néron et
Musonius in Mnemosyne 3 (1950), 319ff ; contra M. P. Charlesworth, Five

Men (1936), 35, on Musonius in Greece ; cf. F. Grosso, Acme 7 (1954),
365ff. See Dio 63.16.1-2.
praetorianos
Perhaps the army mentioned by ps.-Luc. Nero 3 (cf. above). It is known
that Tigellinus, the praetorian prefect, was with Nero in Greece, Dio
63.12.3, hence a praetorian detachment should be expected. But this would
hardly provide half the labour force for the canal as thought by Schumann,
75.
pro contione ad incohandum opus cohortatus est

Cf. Dio 63.16.1 ; ps.-Luc. Nero 3; above, 116. on the date.
tubaque signo dato

Cf. ps.-Luc. Nero 3, where the inauguration begins with Nero singing
hymns to Poseidon, Amphitrete, Leucothea, and Melicerte.
primus rastello humum effodit et corbulae congestam umeris extulit

Cf. Dio 63.16.2 ; ps.-Luc. Nero 3, claiming a golden spade. According to
Dio 63.16.1 evil omens accompanied the ceremony, while Pliny, NH 4.10,
believed all attempts to cut the canal to be sacrilegious. Ps.-Luc. Nero 3 has
the governor of Greece in attendance. but he remains an ignotus for this
year. For Dio's exaggeration and the relative sobriety of Suetonius here see
Heinz, Das Bild, 57fY.
parabat
The tense correctly implies that the Caspian expedition belonged to a
ume near the death of Nero.
ad Caspias portas
Cf. Dio 63.8.1 ; Tac. Hist. 1.6. But the phrase probably reflects a com-
mon ancient error. See Plin. NH 6.40, er Neronis principis comminatio ad
Caspias portas tendere dicebatur, cum peteret illas, quae per Hiberiam in
Sarmatas tendunt. This is usually understood to mean the Dariel Pass.
expeditionem
Extensive preparations were made for the campaign. Dio, 63.8.1, speaks
of scouts who had been sent ahead of the proposed main force before Nero's
death. Legionary detachments were summoned from Britain, Illyricum, and
Germany ; Tac. Hist. 1.6; 9; 2.66. In addition I Italica was specially

organised (below). The exact object of the campaign has never been un-
derstood. Tac. Hist. 1.6 says that Nero... in Albanos parabat. But the
Albani were too far removed from the Dariel Pass, so the common remedy
has been to understand A/ani instead ; cf. CAH X 777. In all probability,
given the Parthian peace of 63 and the annexation of Pontus Polemoniacus
(above, 1 13f) the Caspian expedition should be understood as an effort to
round off previous successes in the East, and to secure the Black Sea as an
area of total Roman influence. See Henderson, 226ff; CAH X 77611;
Magie, RRAM, 1418 ; 562, suggesting that the objective was the kingdom
of Pharasmanes the Iberian. The expedition was aborted because of the
rebellion of Vindex in the spring of 68 (below, 240ff). It is unlikely that the
legionary forces had left Italy at the time of Nero's death. Some German
troops had indeed proceeded to Egypt, Tac. Hist. 1.31, but these can have
had nothing to do with the present expedition, despite Syme, AJP 58
(1937), 11. It would make little sense for troops intended for the Caucasus
to be sent beforehand to Alexandria.
conscripta ex Italicis senum pedum tironibus noua legione

Cf. Dio 55.24.2. There was no problem in recruiting Italians for new
legions though preexisting units tended to rely on provincial recruitment;
Rostovtzeff, SEHRE?, 573 n.8; J. C. Mann, Hermes 91 (1963), 483ff.
The date of the raising of | Italica is not clear. The literary evidence shows
that Nero's expedition was still in its first phase in the spring of 68 (cf.
above). Mann, art. cit., 484, remarks that the "raising and training of a
new legion must have been a lengthy and complicated business," especially
so here with men of no previous military experience. The common view is
that the legion was organised in 67 ; H. M. D. Parker, The Roman Legions
(repr. 1971), 98f (though JLS 9199 does not prove this) ; Syme, art. cit.,
11ff; G. R. Watson, The Roman Soldier (1969), 23. If that is correct the
plans for the expedition were made while Nero was in Greece and must have
been part of a systematic policy which was not based on any personal con-
siderations. [n all likelihood, however, the legion never left Italy. In early
69 it was at Lugdunum, Tac. Hist. 1.59, despatched there either by Nero
before his death or else by Galba subsequently.
quam Magni Alexandri phalanga appellabat

Otherwise unrecorded. Nero may have seen himself, or been seen to be
emulating the exploits of Alexander because of the Caucasian expedition. A
bronze statuette from Suffolk depicting Nero as Alexander may date from
this period ; cf. J. M. C. Toynbee, Art in Britain under the Romans (1964),
49 and plate 5. But there is no need to assume excessive symbolism.
Association with Alexander was long since common; cf., for example,
Weinstock, DJ, 37 on Pompey; cf. Cizek, 41.
19.3 Haec partim nulia reprehensione, partim etiam non mediocri laude
digna in unum contuli, ut secernerem a probis ac sceleribus eius, de
quibus dehinc dicam
The sentence is crucial for the construction of the biography. The com-
mendable acta, itemised since s.9, conclude , the non-commendable acta,
which constitute the bulk of the work and thus allow the portrayal of Nero
as a tyrant, begin. Cf. above, 14ff ; and for the technique, Tib. 42.1 ; Calig.
22.1; Townend, Latin Biography (1967), 85Sff.
Sections 20.1-25.3 : Music and Charioteering
The sections on singing and charioteering together form a single ob-

servable unit or rubric. It is strange that these interests are not incorporated
within the blanket sentence which begins s.26.1 and introduces the worst
aspects of Nero's character. Clearly they are reprehensible activities (cf.
s.19.3) — and in this interpretation Suetonius adheres faithfully to the
literary tradition, cf. Heinz, Das Bild, 53 — but the material is somehow
disjoined from the main catalogue of atrocities which begins later as in-
dicated. This may be seen as an indication that the degree of condemnation
implicit in the writing is less severe than in ss.26.1ff. And, if a highly
structured method of composition is emphasised (cf. above, 15) it might be
argued that ss.20.1-25 constitute the probra, ss.26.VMff the scelera of s.19.3.
It is of more immediate value, however, to stress that this material is not
only arranged according to topic, but has also some signs of straightforward
chronological progression. From both aspects the arrangement is loose and
not carefully controlled. But a description of the organisation of the
material assists in historical evaluation of the text.
Some of the episodes and events contained in the rubric can be dated
reasonably well and this naturally is the best means of demonstrating the
chronological movement of the text :
(a) s.20.1 statim ut imperium adeptus est — 54

s.20.2 et prodit Neapoli = 64
s.21.1 Neroneum agona... reuocauit = 64
s.21.1 simul praefecti... intimi = $9 perhaps
s.21.2 quodam praetorum ... offerente = 67 perhaps

5.21.3 inter cetera... gratia = 67 perhaps
(D 522.1 sed cum inter initia imperii = ¢.54/5

s.22.2 mox et ipse... uoluit = $9 perhaps
s.22.3 Achaiam ... petit - 66
5.23.1 Olympiae = 67
(c) s232 ostensibly continues the description of the Hellenic tour,

though it is not until s.24.2 that this becomes incontro-
vertible.
(d) 5.25 deals completely with Nero's return to Italy from Greece in
67.
This schema is straightforward enough, but it begins to illustrate that

despite the appearance of chronological progression suspicion does still fall
on some items, notably the last three pieces in (a) and most of (c) because
parallels in the other literary sources indicate that Suetonius’ apparent
chronology is invalid. If Suetonius is correct in his order of events, then it
is obviously difficult to date various items precisely. But there is an in-
dication of some attention to accuracy in the following texts :
s.20.1 musica s.22 equorum studio
pueritiae tempore ab ineunte aetate
statim ut imperium adeptus est sed cum inter initia imperii
prodire in scaenam concupiit mox et ipse aurigare
atque etiam spectari saepius uoluit
The argument is that the subsections on music and charioteering are

both built up in a similar, if not actually parallel way on a chronological
basis (). The resemblances between the texts just cited show this con-
clusively for the early life of Nero at least, and there should be no reason
why in the succeeding sentences of each subsection the same type of
progression is not maintained by Suetonius in spite of the fact that he is
writing on one rubric. Finally, the two themes are combined at s.22.3
through what looks like a continuous account of the Greek tour down to
s.24.2.
(2) Cf. the view of G. B. TowNenp, Hermes 88 (1960). 108, that ss.20-25 on Nero's
arlistic career follow one main narrative source with interpolations. This is true enough, but
misses the parallel structures within the subsections.
20.1 Inter ceteras disciplinas pueritiae tempore imbutus et musica

Cf. Tac. Ann. 13.3.7 ; Plin. NH 30.14, citharae tragicique cantus libido.
The evidence for Nero's musical activities is comprehensively collected by
G. Wille, Musica Romana (1967), 338If.
Suetonius’ statement implies that music formed part of Nero's
educational curriculum despite the reservations of E. P. Parks, AJP 67
(1946), 47. There seems to be nothing to commend the view of M. P. O.
Morford, Phoenix 22 (1968), 57ff, that Nero turned to artistic interests be-
cause Seneca did not allow a full development in rhetorical studies ; cf.
below, 286.
A general point requires emphasis here. The literary tradition is
unanimous in its condemnation of Nero's aesthetic and sporting activities,
and this must reflect upper class opinion by and large when the literary
tradition first formed. The dictum of Subrius Flavus is apposite ; Tac. Ann.
15.67.3. Yet if the literary dilettantism amongst the well-to-do of the
Trajanic period is recalled and the fact remembered that nobles other than
Nero appeared on stage and rode chariots at Olympia, it must follow that it
was not so much the activities of Nero in themselves which were morally
reprehensible but the degree to which Nero practised them. ' ... what shock-
ed Nero's contemporaries was neither his passion for music nor his per-
formances as an amateur, but the fact that he was not a simple ‘amateur’,
but posed as a ‘professional,’ performed before the public, and submitted to
its judgement" ; Friedlander, II 362. Note also, that Suetonius is not ex-
pressly hostile to the aurigandi ars of Nero's grandfather ; s.4. However,
any evaluation of Nero as a person must proceed from the premise that
Nero took himself very seriously (though any notion of modesty hardly en-
ters the picture, pace M. F. Gyles, Nero: Qualis Artifex? in CJ 57 [1962],
153ff, 199); cf. M. P. Charlesworth, Nero; Some Aspects in JRS 40
(1950), 69ff. The adverse presentation of Nero by Suetonius is important as
a sign of how in the first place Nero alienated upper class opinion and sub-
sequently maintained a reputation for imperial irresponsibility. But it needs
to be discarded if any but a Suetonian appraisal is to be achieved.
statim ut imperium adeptus est

The implication is that Nero used a new independence to indulge per-
sonal interests. There is no way of judging this, though, for a later date, cf.
Tac. Ann. 14.13.3.
Terpnum citharoedum uigentem tunc praeter alios arcessiit

There is no reason to doubt Terpnus' celebrity as a player of the cithara
in the mid-fifties, though all the information on him, the present notice
apart, dates from considerably later. His fame is indirectly illustrated at Dio
63.8.4 where Nero is shown to surpass his teacher during the Hellenic tour,
and more positively at Suet. Vesp. 19.1, where Suetonius states that Terp-
nus received HS200,000 from Vespasian on the occasion of the dedication
of a new stage in the theatre of Marcellus along with other gifts to other
performers. Plainly, Terpnus' association with Nero was not of such a
nature as to make him unpalatable to later emperors, even though according
to Philost. Vit. Apoil. 5.7 his influence upon Nero was stronger than that of
Nero's imperial predecessors. PIR! T 84; RE s.v. ‘Terpnos’.
For another of Nero's music teachers, Menecrates, see below, 166.
post cenam
See below, 157.
et ipse meditari exercerique coepit neque eorum quicquam omittere, quae

generis elus artifices uel conseruandae uocis causa uel augendae factitarent
Cf. Quint. 11.3.22, communiter et phonascis et oratoribus necessaria est
exercitatio. The important object for both singers and orators was firmitas
corporis, and the way to achieve this was through the observance of
frugalitas, defined by Quintilian, 11.3.19, as the sum of ambulatio, unctio,
ueneris abstinentia, and facilis digestio.
artifices
Clearly ‘artists’ and not 'showmen' ; cf. below, 277.
sed et plumbeam chartam supinus pectore sustinere

This information may derive from the elder Pliny; cf. NH 34.166,
Nero... princeps lamna (sc. plumbi) pectori inposita sub ea cantica excla-
mans alendis uocibus demonstrauit rationem. Gyles, art. cit., 194, has
blamed Suetonius for misunderstanding the purpose of the weight exercises
and claims that the weights themselves should be placed on the stomach for
purposes of diaphragm control. This may be true enough as far as modern
theory is concerned, but it does not take account of the possibility that
Suetonius here is following Pliny, an authority who is really unlikely to be
in error on a technicality.
et abstinere pomis cibisque officientibus

The danger was of causing an obstruction in the throat and affecting the
quality of the voice ; Quint. 11.3.20-21. On certain fixed days of the month
Nero ate only chopped leeks preserved in oil because of their value to the
voice ; Plin. NH 19.108 ; cf. 20.47 ; 49. Foods other than the leek con-
sidered good for the voice were, for example, garlic and dried figs ; Plin. VH
23.121. Quintilian observes, 11.3.23, that orators and singers required dif-
ferent diets.
exiguae uocis et fuscae

Cf. Dio 61.20.2, xaíro: xai pax» xai pélav, c; ye napadédotat, guovnua
Exwv. The possibility that Suetonius and Dio follow a common source is
rather more likely than that Dio here draws on Suetonius as thought by H.
Bardon, Les Empereurs et les lettres latines? (1968), 197. In a less reliable
third century source a comparatively fair description of Nero's voice is
given: low yet reasonably tuneful; Nero's attention to gesture and ac-
companying movement meant that only his imperial rank made his per-
formance undignified; but the postures at times were excessively
ridiculous ; ps.-Luc. Nero 6-7.
Bardon, op. cit., 179f, believes that Suetonius’ judgement applies only to
the early period of the reign before the physical exercises had had their full
effect ; Nero's voice subsequently became good enough to elicit wide ac-
claim. But this view ties down Suetonius' words too closely, and there are
less benign considerations of which to take note in estimating the en-
thusiasm with which Nero's performances were greeted.
Attention has been drawn to Quintilian's comment, 11.3.171, that the
uox fusca was suitable for emotional, mollifying, or pitiful effects, and the
conclusion made that Nero specialised in roles which required such results;
Charlesworth, art. cit., 69. It should be added, though, that Quintilian in
this passage is speaking of the orator's voice, not the singer's. The same
consideration applies to the observations of Quintilian on the meaning of
exiguus when applied to the voice : the adjective represents an extreme, the
opposite of grandis, in judging the quantitas of the voice ; 11.3.14f ; cf.
Dig. 29.5.1.27 ; TLL s.v. 'exiguus'. Fuscus is likewise the opposite of can-
didus when the qualitas of the voice is being decided ; Quint. 11.3.15 ; cf.
TLL s.v. 'fuscus'. And indeed, this point seems to make it virtually im-
possible to determine whether Suetonius' estimate of Nero's voice is really
accurate. Gyles, art. cit., 196, attempted to prove Suetonius incorrect by
maintaining that since Nero participated in contests for heralds his voice
could not have been ‘weak and husky.” It could be added that Suetonius is
emphatic that Nero himself pronounced the liberation speech at the Isthmus
in 67 (s.24.2) which would support his idea. But the nature of the singing
voice is not necessarily the same as that of the speaking voice. This rather
obvious fact is of some relevance. Perhaps the meaning of Suetonius' phrase
should be that Nero's voice had little resonance.
For the view that fuscus may convey froglike associations, a reflection of
the possibility that Nero was popularly caricatured as a frog, see R. M.
Frazer, Nero the Singing Animal in Arethusa 4 (1971), 215ff and below,
135.
prodire in scaenam concupiit

This text should be understood to mean a public performance ; cf. Tac.
Ann. 15.33.1, promiscas scaenas and s.20.] occultae musicae ; contrast, of
a private performance, Tac. Ann. 14.14.4, haud promisco spectaculo. It is
also indicative, to judge from s.20.2 (see below, 124f), of Nero's wishes just
before the visit to Naples in 64. Before that occasion Nero had indulged his
desires to appear on stage with private and semi-private performances ; Tac.
Ann. 15.33. According to Tac. Ann. 14.13.3-14.1, the death of Agrippina
in 59 had meant the loosening of restraint on Nero to perform as singer and
charioteer, from which the first private appearances followed ; Tac. Ann.
14.14.4. Suetonius gives a misleading impression that Nero's wish to per-
form came suddenly. In fact, the appearance at Naples, below, 124f, was the
culmination of a long held aspiration.
Graecum prouerbium
See below, 126f.
occultae musicae
A reference to Nero's non-public performances before 64 ; see above,
124.
20.2 et prodit Neapoli primum

Nero was obviously not yet confident enough of his popularity to make a
full public appearance in Rome, despite the introduction in 60 of the Greek-
styled Neronia ; above, 87. As Tacitus points out, Ann. 15.33.2, Naples was
selected in 64 for Nero's first public appearance on stage because of its ex-
clusively Greek character, quasi Graecam urbem, a character which made

the city both a resort and a cultural centre for the well-to-do at Rome ; cf.
Strabo 5.4.7 ; G. W. Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World (1965), 74,
76, 81ff (especially) ; J. H. D'Arms, Romans on the Bay of Naples (1967),
59f, 142ff. Naples in fact became a favourite haunt of Nero. His presence
there is attested in 59, Tac. Ann. 14.10.5 ; in 65, Tac. Ann. 16.10.4-5 ; and
it was at Naples that Tiridates was received in 66 ; Dio 63.2.3 ; cf. above,
89. s.40.4; D'Arms, op. cit., 96ff.
The present occasion may have been the first stage of a proposed visit to
Greece, but the plan was abandoned in any case ; Tac. Ann. 15.33.2, 34.2 ;
see further below, 128f.
ac ne concusso quidem repente motu terrae theatro

Cf. Tac. Ann. 15.34.1: the theatre collapsed but no injuries were
sustained because the audience had already left. Tacitus does not confirm or
refute that Nero was in the theatre at the time of the misfortune, only that
the occasion was a signal for Nero to compose thanksgivings for his safety ;
Ann. 15.34.2. Nor indeed does he mention an earthquake — no proof that
Suetonius is in error given the frequency of earthquakes in Campania (cf.
Plin. Epp. 6.20.3) and the unlikelihood that every single tremor would be
mentioned by Tacitus. The possibility that Suetonius may have confused the
collapse of the theatre at Naples with damage caused by the earthquake of
62, Sen. NQ 6.1.1-3; Tac. Ann. 15.22 (perhaps 63, cf. Syme, Tacitus,
742). is eliminated by Seneca's explicit testimony that public buildings at
Naples escaped harm : Neapolis quoque priuatim multa, publice nihil amisit
leuiter ingenti malo perstricia ; uillae uero prorutae, passim sine iniuria
tremuere ; NQ 6.1.2. Hence the wall inscription from Pompeii, pro salute
Neronis in terrae motu (CIL IV. 3822) wouid perhaps suit the disturbance of
64 when Nero was in Campania better than those of two years previously as
suggested by Furneaux ad Tac. Lc There may also have been special
celebrations of games in Pompeii to commemorate Nero's escape from
danger ; see A. W. van Buren, Nero-Poppaea-Pompeii in Studies Presented
to D. M. Robinson (1955) II 971. Bolton, CQ 42 (1943), 84, asserts
positively that the collapse of the theatre in Tacitus was the result of the
earthquake in Suetonius. This, however, is to neglect the discrepancy be-
tween Tacitus’ conlapsum and Suetonius’ concusso, not synonyms. To judge
from Suetonius' reference to the theatre at Naples, s.20.2, Tacitus may have
overestimated the damage to that building ; see below, 126. For an ar-
chaeological description of the theatre at Naples with its seating capacity of
some eight thousand see M. Napoli, Napoli Greco-Romana (1959), 183ff ;

Blake, Roman Construction, 75.
ibidem saepius et per complures cantauit dies

There is no other evidence for the length of Nero's stay in Naples.
ad reficiendam uocem
Cf. s.25.3, 152.
balineis
For a description of the widespread popularity of the Campanian sulphur
springs see, in general, D'Arms, op. cit., 139ff, and for the hot springs and
baths at Naples in particular, Strabo 5.4.7 ; Blake, Roman Construction,
148.
in theatrum transiit
Statius, Siluae 3.5.91, refers to the double theatre of Naples, the lesser
covered area of which was used for musical contests ; cf. Napoli, op. cit.,
183ff ; D'Arms, op. cit., 150. If Suetonius is correct here and part of the
theatre was still operational after the earthquake, then Tacitus' claim that
the theatre collapsed is something of an exaggeration; cf. above, 125f.
in orchestra frequente populo epulatus

Tac. Ann. 15.33.3 provides details of Nero's theatre audience : the crowd
was made up of local citizens, people from neighbouring coloniae and mu-
nicipia, members of the court retinue, and soldiers (perhaps praetorian
detachments ; Koestermann ad Tac. /.c.). See also below, 157 on food.
si paulum subbibisset, aliquid se sufferi tinniturum Graeco sermone promisit

The unusual vocabulary contained in this anecdote has suggested to
Townend, Hermes 88 (1960), 108, that Suetonius at this stage of the
narrative was following a source which deliberately avoided the use of
Greek, that source in his opinion being Cluvius Rufus. Given the fact that
on other occasions Suetonius does quote the Greek dicta of Nero, the
specific inclusion of Graeco sermone is striking here. Yet it should also be
remembered that Suetonius’ use of vocabulary is often exotic in its own
right, and this fact might be sufficient explanation for the oddities of the
text. A clue to the avoidance of a Greek quotation might lie in the fact that
Suetonius on this occasion paraphrases Nero's words in contrast to the

Greek quotations in direct speech elsewhere ; cf. above, 124 ; below, 267.
In some cases — and perhaps in the present instance — the actual Greek
phraseology of Nero may not have been assimilated within the literary
canon, and perhaps neither Suetonius nor his source knew the exact words
of the original utterance. E. K. Borthwick, CR n.s. 15 (1965), 252ff, pro-
poses to read se suffritinniturum.
20.3 qui de nouo commeatu Neapolim confluxerant

The expectation should be that the people from Alexandria were men
aboard the ships bringing the grain supply of the new season to Puteoli.
Their earliest time of arrival would be approximately at the middle of May.
There may thus be a hint of the time of Nero's presence in Naples in this
text. Cf. below, 131.
adulescentulos equestris ordinis et quinque amplius milia e plebe ro-

bustissimae iuuentutis undique elegit
The reference is to the formation of the ‘Augustiani’, so-called at s.25.1
and Tac. Ann. 14.15.8 ; cf. Dio 61.20.4, of Adyovoteor. If the present text
continues a broad chronological progression and represents events con-
sequent upon the visit to Naples, then it suggests a second stage in the
development of the body. Tacitus, Amn. 14.15.8, and Dio, 61.20.3-4, con-
nect the original recruitment of the Augustiani with the Juvenalia of 59 ; cf.
Furneaux and Koestermann ad Tac. /.c. ; above, 82. If two stages are con-
ceded, then Dio, referring to five thousand soldiers has conflated them. It is
worth pointing out, though, that under the year 55 Dio, 61.9.1, refers to
equites who formed a bodyguard for Nero, of lmreig of owpuaropüAaxeg ToU
Népwvos, which sounds very much like the Augustiani. The corps might,
therefore, have been organised very much earlier than is usually recognised.
No other source speaks of recruitment from the plebs as Suetonius, though
perhaps this can be imagined from Dio's excessive figure of five thousand
soldiers. )
According to the literary record the functions of the Augustiani were to
serve as cheerleaders for Nero's performances and to act as an imperial
bodyguard. Thus, for instance, they appeared among Nero's retinue during
the Hellenic tour ; Dio 63.8.3. Yet scholars have seen in their services more
than the literary record makes plain. Cizek, 124, believes that the formation
of the Augustiani was a step in a conscious policy on Nero's part to
hellenise Roman society, to convert especially its youth into "une couche
sociale éminente, mais docile et comparable à celle des royaumes gréco-

orientaux," an idea which is basically as old as Rostovtzeff ; cf. Rómische
Bleitessarae (1905), 74. There seems to be little doubt that some hellenistic
influence does lie behind the conception of the corps. Thus Momigliano,
717 n.2, draws a hellenistic comparison with the BaocAcxoi naides. But the
question really is one of the degree to which a conscious cultural policy was
being promoted, or alternatively, to what extent the hellenistic impact on
society was fortuitous or assimilatory. Momigliano, /.c., observes that Nero
was probably unaware to the full of the " monarchising effect" that the for-
mation of the Augustiani meant. This seems to be the more sensible line.
duces
Cf. Tac. Ann. 1.16.3 with Goodyear's note ad loc.
21.1 Cum magni aestimaret cantare etiam Romae

That element of chronological discontinuity in Suetonius’ narratives
which involves abrupt and misleading transitions needs emphasis here. For
similar transitions see ss.20.2 et prodit Neapoli ; 34.2 ; below, 249. As far
as the sequence of events can be reconstructed from Tacitus, Nero's visit to
Naples was not immediately followed by his return to Rome for the
celebration of the second Neronia, as might be inferred from the beginning
of s.21.1. Instead, Nero proceeded to Beneventum to attend a gladiatorial
show given by Vatinius ; Tac. Ann. 15.34-35. He then returned to Rome,
having abandoned the idea of making a journey across the Adriatic to
Greece ; Tac. Ann. 15.33.2. Much difficulty is felt by J. D. P. Bolton, Was
the "Neronia'' a Freak Festival in CQ 42 (1948), 821f, 85ff, on the issue of
whether Nero went to Beneventum or Rome after Naples, but in actuality
no difficulty should arise since no support can be given the supposition that
Suetonius is writing a strictly sequential narrative. [t is more in order to in-
sist on the loose chronological arrangement within the framework of com-
position per species, here the rubric clearly being cantus ; see above, 119ff.
Tacitus is thus to be preferred in the main as recording the true sequence
of events, though suspicion arises at his mention of a proposed visit to
Greece in 64. Ann. 15.36.1 states that a contemplated visit was abandoned
for unknown reasons, causae in incerto fuere. Tacitus continues that Nero
was still considering a visit to Egypt on his arrival in Rome, but that this
was scotched for superstitious reasons ; Ann. 15.36.1-3 ; s.19.1. Now the
idea of this eastern expedition was not suddenly conceived as the building
preparations in Alexandria for Nero's impending arrival clearly demon-
strate ; above, 114f, below, 216. Similarly, the argument can be made that
the Hellenic tour of 66/7 was not hastily arranged either, for there are
signs of preparatory building activity at Olympia and Isthmus (at least) to
mark the attendance there of Nero ; see below, 140f. Thus it seems that the
alleged visit in 64 was in reality only a reflection of the fact that
preparations were being set in motion for an eventual visit at some future
date. The only reason for the visit to Beneventum was thus Vatinius' en-
tertainment, and the expedition there should not be thought of as part of a
progress to Brundisium for embarcation overseas. Tacitus' causae were in
incerto because they were non-existent. Nero's intention may well have
been to journey later to Egypt during the summer of 64 and to winter there
before moving to Greece on the return leg. The whole project may have had
to be cancelled not because of superstition, but because of the great fire of
64 and its consequences.
Neroneum agona
The correct term; cf. s.12.3. Agon is used by Suetonius only four times
in all, each time in the Nero; cf. Howard, Jackson, s.v.
ante praestitutam diem reuocauit

The precise date of the Neronia is unknown, though suggestions have
been made: October, as the month of Nero's accession or, with more
probability, at some time during the summer ; at Amn. 16.4 Tacitus places
the second celebration of the festival after the disclosure, on 19th April, 65,
of the Pisonian conspiracy (cf. Ann. 15.53.1 ; K. Latte, Rómische Religion-
sgeschichte [1960], 162 for the April date) ; yet since on the basis of the
present text that celebration was early, the regular date should fall in the
summer ; cf. RE s.v. 'Neronia' (W. Hartke).
There is no evidence at all to support the first of these contentions, so at
first sight it does seem that the alternative is compelling, especially in view
of the fact that in the early sections of Ann. 16 Tacitus is clearly presenting
a chronological outline of events (nb. Ann. 16.1.1, dehinc ; 3.1, interim ;
4.1, interea ; 6.1, post finem ludicri, etc.). The objection that Tacitus places
the first celebration of the Neronia in 60 at the beginning of the year, thus
indicating an early calendar date for the festival is overruled by the con-
sideration that there was little for Tacitus to report at all under that year.
Nonetheless, the second view relies, as noted earlier, on the correlation of
the present text with Tac. Ann. 16.4-5, but this is not necessarily valid.
Bolton, art. cit., 84f, has demonstrated the differences between the accounts
of Suetonius and Tacitus in their respective treatments of the 'second
Neronia' : Suetonius has only a contest of citharoedi and a festival that lasts
one day ; Tacitus has an extensive musical festival lasting several days and
says nothing of a postponement as Suetonius. Bolton's conclusion is that
Suetonius speaks of a celebration in 64 which was postponed, and that
Tacitus describes the resumed festival in 65. Such a theory can be con-
firmed by observing that elsewhere Suetonius does present material which
closely echoes Tacitus’ account of 65:
Suet. s.24.1 Tac. Ann. 16.4.2

in certando uero ita legi oboediebat, X ingreditur theatrum, cunctis citharae
ut numquam excreare ausus sudo- — legibus obtemperans, ne fessus resi-
rem quoque frontis brachio deterge- — deret, ne sudorem nisi ea quam in-
ret duiui gerebat ueste detergeret ...
(cf. Heinz, Das Bild, 54). There is thus here a strong indication that
Suetonius was acquainted with material used by Tacitus for his description
of the second Neronia, though he has reserved it for a more generalised
context; cf. ss.23.2ff. Since there are no certain parallels between the
present text and Tac. Ann 16.4-5 C) it is safe to believe that the two
passages refer to two separate occasions. [n consequence, this invalidates
Furneaux' statement that " the postponement of the festival and of accepting
the crown (s.21.2) are discredited items since Tacitus does not speak of
them" ; ad Tacitus, /c.
If then the present text refers to 64 and not to 65 it is not evidence for
uncovering the regular date of the Neronia, if indeed there was a regular
date for the festival. For 64 both original alternatives must be discarded and
a third possibility urged. An indication that the Neronia belonged to the
first half of the year rather than July (as Bolton suggested) may come from
the fact that in 60 Nero held the consulship for a period of six months ; see
above, 92. The consulship will have been intended to incorporate the
celebration of the first festival perhaps in the final months of Nero's office.
(3) The passages ciied above form a much more compelling piece of evidence, particularly
in view of the rarity of derergeo in both Tacitus (only this one example) and Suetonius (two
examples). than the possible correspondences between (i) Suet. 5.21.1. statione militum and
Tac. Ann. 16.5.1. militibus; Gi) Suet. s.21.1, flagitantibusgue cunctis and Tac. Ana.
16.4.2, flagitante uulgo ; (iii) Suet, s.21.2. non cessauit identidem se publicare and Tac.
Ann. 16.4.2, ut omnia studia sua publicaret. The first examples show only a resemblance of
function and could belong to either year; the third passage from Suetonius could anyway
belong to 65 ; the second examples are more troublesome, but coincidence cannot be ruled
out.
AN HISTORICAL COMMENTARY {31
Given the success of Nero’s appearance on stage in Naples in 64, there need
be no suspicion that the second Neronia was begun unusually early in order
to permit Nero to appear in Rome itself. On the basis of the hint at s.20.2
(above, 127), the celebration took place after mid-May.
The objection that at s.12.3 Suetonius describes the Neronia as a quin-
quennale certamen and that a celebration of the festival was not even due in
64 disappears in the light of Bolton's demonstration, art. cit., 82ff, that
quinquennalis can be used to render the idea of a period of four years
without difficulty. In addition (to the examples given by Bolton), it can be
-noted that at s.53.1 Suetonius uses /ustrum, usually used for a five year
term, of the Olympic games. There was obviously much confusion over
these terms; see Weinstock, DJ, 310ff.
Bolton's view then, accepted here, that the Neronia was a four yearly
festival means that technically a third celebration was due in 68. Bolton,
art. cit., 89, indeed detected signs of this impending occasion in an issue of
copper semisses at the end of 67 or early in 68. The numismatic argument,
however, was wrong, as shown by D. W. McDowell, Numismatic Evidence
for the Neronia in CQ n.s. 8 (1958), 192ff : the coins were commemorative
rather than anticipatory. Yet the thesis of a four yearly celebration does not
thereby break down at all and should be allowed to stand.
flagitantibusque cunctis
Cf. above, 130 n3.
' caelestem uocem

The first recognition of the divine quality of Nero's voice is ascribed to
the Augustiani in 59; Tac. Ann. 14.15.9 ; cf. the acclamation at Dio
63.20.5. It came to be expected that sacrifices should be offered pro caelesti
uoce as shown by the charge against Thrasea Paetus that he had not done
so; Tac. Ann. 16.22.1 ; cf. Dio 62.26.3, — a chilling confirmation of
Apollonius’ claim that such charges could be made; Philost. Vit. Apoll.
5.7 ; cf. 4.39. The cult of Nero's voice should be viewed simply as a form of
adulation ; Koestermann, ad Ann. 16.22.1.
in. hortis
Cf. Tac. Ann. 15.33.1, nam adhuc (i.e., before 64) per domum aut hortos
cecinerat.
statione militum, quae tunc excubabat

Probably detachments of praetorians are meant. Statio is virtually a
technical term for ‘guard duty’; cf. G. R. Watson, The Roman Soldier
(1969), 73 ; and for similar usages see above, 63 ; 69. Cf. also above, 130
n.3.
From the lack of verbal similarities it is doubtful that a common source
lies behind s.21.1 and Tacitus’ account of the Juvenalia of 59, Anm.
14.15.6-7, but there are similarities of content as the following collation of
passages shows:
Suet. Tac.
statione militum ... simul praefecti postremus ipse scaenam incedit,
praetorii citharam sustinentes, post multa cura temptans citharam et
tribunl militum iuxtaque amicorum | praemeditans adsistentibus phonas-
intimi cis. accesserat cohors militum, cen-
turiones tribunique elt maerens
Burrus ac laudans
nomen suum in albo profitentium citharoedorum iussit ascribi sorticulaque in

urnam cum ceteris demissa
A procedure similar to that used at the circus seems indicated : there the
line-up of charioteers was decided by the drawing of balls from an urn
which was rotated like a spit — much like the draw of the F. A. Cup in
principle. The selection was made by the presiding magistrate at the games
in the presence of representatives of the circus factions (on whom see below,
136); DS s.v. ‘Circus.’
sorticulaque
The word appears nowhere else in literary Latin. TLL s.v.
praefecti praetorii
On the death of Sex. Afranius Burrus in 62, Faenius Rufus and Ofonius
Tigellinus were appointed praetorian prefects ; Tac. Amn. 14.51.5 ; Dio
61.1373. In 65 Faenius Rufus was replaced by C. Nymphidius Sabinus. RE
s.v. 'praefectus praetorio', col. 2423.
tribuni militum
In the main military tribunes were equestrians in their early thirties, so
perhaps a connection might be made with the military contingent of the
Augustiani ; cf. Dio 62.20.3-4 ; above, 127f. Alternatively, they might be
ex-centurions from the urban cohorts at Rome. See E. Birley, The

Equestrian Officers of the Roman Army in Roman Britain and the Roman
Army (1953), 133ff ; G. Webster, The Roman Imperial Army (1969), 117f.
21.2 Niobam se cantaturum

A possible allusion to this role sung by Nero appears in an epigram of
Lucillius, Anth. Gr. 11.254. For other Neronian roles see below, 134.
Cluuium Rufum consularem

The date of Cluvius Rufus' consulship is unknown unless he is to be
identified with the man mentioned in Josephus, Ant. Jud. 19.91-92, in
which case 39 or 40 may be possible years ; but there are doubts ; cf. Syme,
Tacitus, 294. The only certain fact is that the office was held some time
before 64, the probable date for the present text. His attachment to and
function as herald in the Neronian retinue appear also from Dio 63.14.3 (in
reference to the Hellenic tour), where he is likewise described as a consular.
His role as herald doubtless depended upon his reputation for eloquence;
Tac. Hist. 4.4. Little else is known of him under Nero, except that he did
not use his closeness to the princeps to personal advantage through delation,
and that he was a man of wealth; Tac. /c. In the civil wars of 68/9
Cluvius governed Hispania Tarraconensis, and finally accompanied Vi-
tellius to Rome having swum with successive tides of changing emperors ;
Tac. Hist. 1.8; 76; 2.58-59 ; 65; 3.65; PIR? C 1206; cf. 1202. Sher-
win-White, ad Plin. Epp. 9.9.15, conjectures that Cluvius was an older con-
temporary of Verginius Rufus. See also above, 17.
coronamque eam et reliquam certaminis partem in annum sequentem distulit

That is until 65, on the view that this text refers to a second celebration
of the Neronia in 64; cf. above, 129ff.
ul saepius canendi occasio esset

Bolton, art. cit., 86, doubts the truth of this clause, regarding it as an in-
ference on Suetonius' part ; the reason for the postponement of the festival
is likely to have been Nero's wish to make haste with the visit to Alexandria
(cf. Tac. Ann. 15.36.1 ; above, 114f ; 128D ; but when this idea was aban-
doned the Neronia was not resumed in 64 because of the great fire. Thus
Bolton. This reconstruction is sensible enough, though it requires slight
modification in view of the demonstration that the Neronia belonged to a
month earlier than July; cf. above, 129ff. Nero's visits to Naples and
Beneventum should belong to the interval March — end of May (note that
Nero was at Naples in March, 68 ; below, 249), after which the aborted
second Neronia quickly followed ; then the intended departure for Egypt
was cancelled because of the outbreak of fire. There is little other informa-
tion for 64 which can be discussed, apart from Nero's visit to Antium
before the fire; Tac. Ann. 15.39.1 (though observe also the events noticed
at Tac. Ann. 15.37 and see below, 159).
quod cum tardum uideretur, non cessauit identidem se publicare

See above, 130 n.3. The implication is that the games were postponed for
a specific interval of time.
dubitauit etiam an priuatis spectaculis operam inter scaenicos daret quodam

praetorum sestertium decies offerente
A more detailed account of what must be the same event appears in Dio
63.21.2: a certain Larcius Lydus offered Nero HSlm. to perform on the
cithara ; Nero performed but did not accept the money, though allegedly it
was collected by Tigellinus in return for Larcius' life. The significant point
is that Dio has the episode in 68. Hence, if that is accurate, there is strong
evidence here for another chronological break in Suetonius' narrative.
Larcius may well be the A. Larcius Lydus whose name appears on a
water-pipe, cf. Epigraphica 13 (1951), 21, but no record of his cursus sur-
vives ; cf. PIR? L 96, which does not equate the present text with the
passage from Dio. On the basis of the comparison Larcius' praetorship
should be assigned to 68.
21.3 tragoedias quoque cantauit personatus heroum deorumque, item heroi-

dum ac dearum, personis effectis ad similitudinem oris sui et feminae,
prout quamque diligeret
According to Dio, 63.9.5, the masks all bore the features of Poppaea; cf.
Heinz, Das Bild, 58. On Nero's roles see below.
inter cetera cantauit Canac[h]en parturientem, Oresten mairicidam, Oedi-

podem excaecatum, Herculem insanum
To the roles given by Suetonius, Dio, 63.9.4 ; 10.2, adds Thyestes and
Alcmeon ; Juvenal, 8.228f, Antigone and Melanippe ; Philostratus, Viz
Apoll. 5.8, Creon ; Lucillius perhaps Nauplius and Capaneus, if alluding to
Nero, Anth. Gr. 11.185 ; 254 ; cf. also Dio Chrys. Orar. 71.9, and above,
133.
Canac[h]en
Conceivably the sound of this word added to a popular caricature of Nero
as a frog through its resemblance to xavay7, used of frogs at Nicander,
Theriaka 620f, the outcome of which was a medieval legend in which Nero
gave birth to a frog ; thus Frazer, Arethusa 4 (1971), 215fT ; above, 124.
in qua fabula fama est tirunculum militem positum ad custodiam aditus,

cum eum ornari ac uinciri catenis, sicut argumentum postulabat, uideret, ac-
currisse ferendae opis gratia
Cf. Dio 63.10.5 with Heinz, Das Bild, 58. Dio places the episode in 67 ;
perhaps, therefore, another sign of chronological displacement in Suetonius.
22.1 Equorum studio uel praecipue ab ineunte aetate flagrauit

Cf. Tac. Ann. 13.3.7. There is no implication that Nero rode horses, nor
does the phrase regimen equorum exercere. Tac. /.c.. necessarily connote
this ; for the same phrase cf. Tac. Ann. 14.14.4 ; 52.4, where ‘drive’ is a
preferable notion ; contra, Parks AJP 67 (1946), 47 ; Warmington, 111. It
is of note in this connection that s.22 concerns itself solely with
charioteering.
prasini
Nero was evidently a supporter of the Greens to judge from Dio 63.6.3
where at the reception of Tiridates in 66 (above, 89ff) he is said to have ap-
peared as a charioteer in the uniform of that faction ; as also from Plin. NH
33.90 which states that Nero had the sand in the circus sprinkled with
green borax. This preference may be a sign of Nero's plebeian sympathies if
the theory is correct that the supporters of the circus factions came from
different social categories ; for which view see R. Goossens, Note sur les
factions du cirque à Rome in Byzantion 14 (1939), 205ff. Such a notion
would certainly coincide with Nero's popularity at large with the p/ebs ; cf.
Yavetz, op. cit., 120ff. For circus factions see below, 136, and on the in-
terest of all social elements in the circus, Friedlander, II 24f.
inter. condiscipulos querens, obiurgante paedagogo

For Nero's education see 50; 56f; 285f.
22.2 neque dissimulabat uelle se palmarum numerum ampliari

After the discovery of the Pisonian conspiracy in 65 a decree was passed
as part of the general thanksgiving that the number of races at the Ludi
Cereales should be increased; Tac. Amn. 15.74.1. How far this was at
Nero's instigation cannot be determined.
quare spectaculum muliplicatis missibus in serum protrahebatur, ne dominis

quidem iam factionum dignantibus nisi ad totius diei cursum greges ducere
Cf. Dio 61.6.2-3 : knowledge of Nero's great devotion to the circus en-
couraged horsebreeders (ixorzpógo: = domini?) and charioteers to withhold
their services at the normal rates, thus inducing the praetor, A. Fabricius
Veiento, to use dogs for the races instead of horses ; the ensuing dispute
among the factions over the new arrangement was resolved when Nero him-
self put up the prize money for horse races. There is clearly something of a
basic resemblance between Dio's story and the present passage, but little
more than this can be said. Dio's piece appears under the year 54, which
may be of help in dating the text of Suetonius, and which is of help, if Dio's
date is correct, for the year of Veiento's praetorship ; P/R? F 91 ; W. C.
McDermott, AJP 91 (1970), 129ff.
dominis
Precise details of the functions of the domini factionum, jobmasters, are
not available, but it is generally clear that they must have been stable-
tycoons who ensured by contract a reguiar supply of horses and charioteers
for the games given by Roman magistrates. Some were perhaps charioteers
themselves ; cf. CIL VI 10058 ; 10060. For the use of dominus in this
semi-technical sense cf. s.5.2 ; CIL ll.c. ; HA Comm. 16.9 ; see Friedlander,
II 27 ; H. A. Harriss, Sport in Greece and Rome (1972), 213. The term
may later have become replaced by factionarius ; A. Maricq, Factions de
cirque et partis populaires in Bulletin de l'Académie royale belgique 36
(1950), 396ff.
factionum
There were under the early Empire four racing clubs, named after the
colours of the tunics worn by the charioteers — prasina, russata, albata,
ueneta. They provided the stock of horses and riders for the circenses.
Domitian later introduced two more factions, but they proved to be un-
successful additions and during the second century the Blues and Greens
virtually ousted the remainder. See in general Friedlander, I] 28 ; Harriss,
Op. cit., 193, and for the notion that the colours represented the social con-
text of their supporters, above, 135.
mox et ipse aurigare atque etiam spectari saepius uoluit

Cf. Tac. Ann. 14.14.1, uetus illi cupido erat curriculo quadrigarum in-
sistere. Tacitus’ following description of the first activities of Nero as
charioteer precedes the Juvenalia ; Ann. 14.2ff. For Nero's general en-
thusiasm for horses, cf. Dio 61.6.1, and for charioteering in public, Dio
62.15.1 ; 63.1.1.
in hortis
See G. B. Townend, AJA 62 (1958), 216ff.
aliquo liberto mittente mappam unde magisiratus solent

Suetonius alludes to the practice whereby the magistrate presiding at the
games dropped a napkin from his box above the carceres as the starting-
signal for a race; cf. Mayor on Juv. 11.195 ; Mart. 12.28.9 ; Tertuil. De
Spect. 16; Platner, Ashby, Topographical Dictionary, s.v. “Circus Maxi-
mus’; Harriss, op. cit., plate 77. There is an anecdote in Cassiodorus, Va-
riar. 3.51.9, to the effect that this practice originated during Nero's reign :
mappa uero, quae signum uidetur dare circensibus, tali casu fluxit in morem,
cum Nero prandium protenderet et celeritatem, ut assolet, auidus spectandi
populus flagitaret, ille mappam, qua tergendis manibus utebatur, iussit abici
per fenestram, ut liberiatem daret certaminis postulati. hinc tractum est, ut
ostensa mappa certa uideatur promissio circensium futurorum. The story has
been doubted, cf. DS s.v. ‘Circus’ (Bussemaker, Saglio), but may perhaps be
true. Mappa is rare in first century texts, appearing for the first time at
Mart. 12.28 (OCT). It appears in Suetonius only on this single occasion, a
possible indication. of the authenticity of the story since the alternative
signum mittere which would have been more normal appears consistently in
pre-Neronian authors ; cf. TLL s.v. ‘mappa’; DS s.v. ‘mappa’ ; Harriss, op.
cit., 215.
The point of Suetonius' feeling here is perhaps that the /ibertus has usur-
ped the position of the praetor, thus compounding the reversal of values
represented by Nero's appearance as auriga.
22.3 Achaiam, ut diximus, petit

For the date of departure, early in August 66, see Latomus 37 (1978) ;
cf. s.19.1.
hinc maxime motus

The motivation described subsequently may be valid, but it probably does
not have any relevance to the feeling of Nero immediately prior to the
departure for Greece as the text implies ; cf. below.
instituerant ciuitates, apud quas musici agones edi solent, omnes citha-
roedorum coronas ad ipsum mittere
As an appendage to his comments on the first Neronia Dio, 61.21.2,
says that Nero after taking the crown for the cithara at that festival, was
sent similar crowns, 4& dzávrwv riv aywvwy, which can really only mean
from the Greek cities, though Dio is not specific on this. If the iden-
tification of this passage with the present text from Suetonius is correct, the
episode here in Suetonius must be dated to 60 soon after the first Neronia.
Thus it seems that Nero may well have been encouraged to go to Greece
because of the apparent enthusiasm for him of the Greeks themselves, but
that receipt of the crowns was a contributory factor in the decision well in
advance of the visit itself.
instituerant
The abrupt change in the narrative tense could indicate an interpolation
from another source being used by Suetonius, a valid assumption if the
material here does in fact refer to a time nearer 60 than 66 ; (above).
legatos
The embassy was clearly intended to be honorific, as that, for instance, of
Plin. £pp. 10.43.1, rather than to solicit imperial aid. The members of the
delegation were perhaps representatives of a panhellenic league of the type
seen in ILS 8792 ( = Smallwood, Documents, no. 361) ; cf. J. A. O. Larsen,
Represeniative Government in Greek and Roman History (1955), 112. For
embassies in general see A. H. M. Jones, The Greek City (1940), 243 ; F.
Millar, JRS 56 (1966), 163ff (under Augustus).
primos admitteret
The implication is that Nero was personally attentive to the day-to-day
business of receiving embassies, for the profusion of which note Plut.
Quaest. Rom. 43.
familiaribus epulis ... super cenam

Cf. below, 157.
nec profectione dilata

The text implies, contrary to fact, that the Hellenic tour was entered
upon suddenly. Coins from Alexandria belonging to the thirteenth Alexan-
drian year of Nero's reign (ending on 29th August, 67) depict Greek gods
associated with Olympia, Delphi, Argos, Nemea, Actium, and Isthmus. J.
Vogt, Die alexandrinischen Münzen (1924), 33, correctly described these
issues as 'programmatic,' reflecting panhellenic propaganda in anticipation
of an imperial attendance at all the centres advertised by the coins.
However, since the view, subscribed to by Vogt, that the liberation of
Greece took place in 66 is in all probability wrong (see below, 145), the
production of these coins cannot have been triggered by enthusiasm for the
liberation of Greece in the winter of 66/7 (Vogt, op. cit., 34). [t is
preferable to believe that the mint at Alexandria had been informed of
Nero's tour of Greece before it actually began, and of the plans to attend the
major Greek festivals. This allows a more measured interval of time for the
minting of the coins themselves, and also coincides with other signs of
preparatory activities for the tour ; cf. below, 140f. For the coins, see Vogt,
op. cit., W 11.
This idea of a ‘prepared visit’ basically precludes the theory that a
political reason lay behind the visit to Greece, despite the intimation to that
effect of Syme, Tacitus, 247. Nero was no less personally vulnerable in
Greece than in Rome. But the conspiracy of Piso was over, and the political
ascendancy restored for the time being through the reception of Tiridates.
Cassiopen
On the island of Corcyra. Most of the details of the journey from Rome
to Greece are of course overlooked by Suetonius ; cf. The Chronology of
Nero's Visit to Greece, A.D. 66/67 in Latomus 37 (1978).
statim ad aram louis Cassil cantare auspicatus

Corcyra was one of the principal Greek centres of the worship of Zeus
Kasios, a lately hellenised divinity of Syrian origin associated with Mt.
Casius in Seleucia and Mt. Casius in Egypt. His worship may have had
some connection with the sunrise ; cf. Gagé, Apollon romain (1955), 654f,
citing HA Hadr. 14 ; Amm. Marc. 22.14.4, which would account for Nero's
interest here given his attention to Apollo ; cf. below, 151f. For mention of
the temple of Zeus Kasios at Cassiope see Plin. NH 4.52, and for worship
of the god on Corcyra, CIL Ill 576 ; 577 ; BMC Thessaly-Aetolia, 153ff
(there are no coins with Casian legends before Caesar). DS s.v. ‘Casius’ ;
RE s.v. ‘Kasios’ (2).
certamina deinceps obiit omnia

There is no way of telling how many festivals Nero did in fact attend.
Dio 63.21.1, says that Nero returned to Rome with 1,808 victory crowns,
an impossible figure. Yet for a salutary statement on the all-pervasiveness
of games throughout Greece see Jones, op. cit., 231.
23.] nam et quae diuersissimorum temporum sunt, cogi in unum annum,

quibusdam etiam iteratis, iussit
It would be impossible to compile a reasonable catalogue of the years and
seasons in which festivals were held, nor would it serve much purpose. The
evidence for the dates of the major festivals, which is where attention must
have been mostly directed, is noted in Latomus 37 (1978). The major
festivals were celebrated in cycles of two or four years, but during Nero's
presence in Greece they were held whether technically due or not. Thus,
most importantly, the 21 1th Olympiad was postponed from 65 to 67 in or-
der that Nero might be able to participate; Euseb. Chron. Lib. I 215
(Schoene) ; cf. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.7, a fact which, confirmed by the
various versions of Jerome's Chronicle, should be interpreted as the result of
a prepared visit. It is probable that the Isthmia, Actia, and Pythia were
celebrated twice during the Neronian visit, which Suetonius' 'one year' most
likely means, not a specific interval of twelve months.
Olympiae
The most significant evidence on Olympia under Nero comes from the
archaeological record, which has produced firm indications of building
developments during the Neronian period. Thus, a building which may
previously have served as a pavilion for the Olympic judges (the so called
hellanodikeion), located in the south-east of the Altis, was converted into
an imperial residence, a water pipe with the inscription NERONIS AVG
providing a convenient piece of dating evidence ; Inschriften von Olympien,
no. 915. Moreover, the Altis as a whole was extended under Nero : two new
walls, complete with gateways, marked out a new southern and western
perimeter. A triumphal arch was also erected in honour of Nero. See E. N.
Gardiner, Olympia. Its History and Remains (1925), 163 ; 276f ; L. Drees,
Olympia (1968), 125ff.
It should be clear that at least some of this building activity was the
direct result of the anticipated visit to Olympia of Nero, in particular, the
imperial villa and triumphal arch. And it must be a valid assumption,
though little emphasised, that such building operations cannot have tran-
spired within a few days or even weeks. It is arguable, therefore, that these
activities were carried out well in advance of Nero's arrival in Greece since
information had already been sent that the visit was to take place, perhaps
as early as 64 ; cf. above, 128f. Comparisons may be drawn with the signs
of preparatory building in Alexandria; cf. above, 115 ; and, more con-
clusively, at the Isthmus. From the redevelopment of Corinth in 44 B.C.
until the Neronian era no major changes were made to the Isthmian theatre.
But under Nero the picture changes completely. For instance, the
auditorium was rebuilt and equipped with a number of new seats;
modifications were made to the skene; and colossal statues of Nero and
Dionysus were perhaps placed in the orchestra ; cf. O. Broneer, Excavations
at Isthmia in Hesperia 31 (1962), Iff ; Elizabeth R. Gebhard, The Theatre
at Isthmia (1973), 141f. It seems, therefore, that the state visit to Greece
was carefully planned well ahead of time and was not undertaken ca-
priciously.
[n spite of the fact that Nero's participation in the Olympic contests was
poorly regarded by certain sections of Roman society it is well to remember
that Nero was not the first member of the imperial family to have done this.
Much earlier Tiberius, though before becoming emperor, and subsequently
Germanicus had entered contests ; /nschriften von Olympien, nos. 220, 221.
It is questionable, therefore, to what extent society as a whole was offended
by Nero's behaviour. Certainly at a later date his name was removed from
the list of Olympic victors ; cf. Pausan. 10.36.9 ; but this is probably at-
tributable to the damnatio memoriae after Nero's death (cf. Inschriften von
Olympien, no. 287) or else the fact that contests had been won unfairly,
rather than because of offence at the participation of the emperor.
For Nero's victories in the competitions for quadriga, ten horse chariot,
herald, tragedy, and citharoedus see Euseb. Chron. i.c. ; L. Moretti, Olym-
pionikai, I Vincitori negli antichi Agoni Olimpici, in Accademia Nazionale
dei Lincei, Memorie ser. VIM, vol. VIII fasc. 2 (1957), 158.
praeter. consuetudinem musicum agona commisit

At Olympia only gymnastic, athletic, and equestrian events were held as
a rule ; perhaps a reflection of the military origins of the contests. Drees, op.
cit., 62; Gardiner, op. cit. 73.
liberto Helio
Helius was left in charge of affairs in Rome and Italy in 66 when Nero
departed for Greece ; Dio 63.12.1. He had been a freedman of Claudius and
had held a procuratorial post in Asia in 54 (on which see P. R. C. Weaver,

Familia Caesaris [1972), 279). He will have passed into the familia of
Nero, although nothing is known of him until 66. During his period of
preeminence in Rome he was responsible for a number of executions, Dio
63.18.2, and then probably in the late weeks of 67 he travelled to Greece to
impress upon Nero the seriousness of the urban situation after despatches
had failed ; Dio 63.19.1 ; cf. Latomus 37 (1978). In 68 Helius was put to
death by Galba ; Dio 64.3.4 ; Plut. Galb. 17.2 ; PIR? H 55 ; Schumann,
52ff.
rescripsit his uerbis

The implication is strong here that Suetonius quotes an imperial rescript
verbatim. [f so, the text is a slight indication that, despite the contents of
the message, Nero was not unattentive to imperial business during the tour.
It could be customary procedure for the princeps to reply first-hand to a
message of Helius’ type ; cf. Millar, JRS 57 (1967), 9ff. It is thus possible
that Suetonius himself researched this piece of administrative material,
given the absence of anything similar in Dio.
23.2 Cantante eo ne necessaria quidem causa excedere theatro licitum est

This sentence appears to introduce a continuation of the account of the
Hellenic tour, though comparative material from other sources is found in
dissimilar contexts. An immediate discrepancy to note is that Olympia did
not have a theatre (cf. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.7). See above, 119ff.
itaque et enixae quaedam in spectaculis dicuntur et multi taedio audiendi

laudandique clausis oppidorum portis aut furtim desiluisse de muro aut
morte simulata funere elati
For similar stories all in reference to Greece, see Dio 63.15.2-3 ; Suet.
Vesp. 4.4 ; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.7.
oppidorum
A. A. Howard, HSCPh 7 (1896), 205ff, shows that this is not a reference
to ‘towns’ but to the paradoi of Greek theatres; cf. Dio 63.15.3.
quo metu iudicum

Cf. Tac. Ann. 16.4.3, sententias iudicum opperiebatur ficto pauore (65) ;
Dio 63.9.2.
aduersarios, quasi plane condicionis eiusdem, obuersare, captare, infamare

secreto, nonnumquam ex occursu maledictis incessere ac, si qui arte praecel-
lerent, conrumpere etiam solebat
For similar information cf. Dio 63.9.1-2.
23.3 iudices
That is, hellanodikai, a term not confined only to the Olympic judges,
but in common usage at Greek festivals ; cf. L. Robert, Hellenica 5 (1947),
59ff.
euentum ín manu esse Fortunae

Cf. 15; 46 , 278.
24.1 in certando uero ita legi oboediebat, ut numquam excreare ausus

sudorem quoque frontis brachio detergeret
Cf. Tac. Ann. 16.4.2 (65); Heinz, Das Bild, 54 ; above, 130 n.3.
hypocrita
That is, histrio, a transliteration as Aieronicarum below, 143, and a rare
form, not appearing in Latin before Quintilian ; 7LL s.v. ‘hypocrites’.
et praeconio ubique contendit

Cf. Dio Chrysos. Orat. 71.9.
ac ne culus alterius hieronicarum memoria aut uestigium extaret usquam,

subuerti et unco trahi abicique in latrinas omnium statuas et imagines im-
perauit
There is no real way of judging the truth of the allegation. Dio, 63.8.5,
however, makes it clear that the statues of the citharoedus Pammenes were
mutilated because of Neronian jealousy, though the location of these statues
is not given. Conceivably Suetonius has drawn on a source which ex-
aggerated, or has embellished himself, the incident known to Dio.
hieronicarum
Plainly a Latinised form of lepovixng, but rare in literary Latin ; the word
generally appears only in inscriptions ; TLL s.v.
statuas et imagines
Not a tautology as might at first be expected. Victors at Olympia were
allowed to erect statues in commemoration of their successes, but only vic-
tors who had won three times were permitted to set up statues which por-
trayed their own features ; for the rest idealised representations were the
rule. Hence, Suetonius' imagines are the equivalent of the realistic icons;
cf. Plin. NH 34.16, effigies hominum non solebant exprimi nisi aliqua
inlustri causa perpetuitatem merentium, primo sacrorum certaminum uictoria
maximeque Olympiae, ubi omnium, qui uicissent, statuas dicari mos erat,
eorum uero, qui ter ibi superauissent, ex membris ipsorum similitudine ex-
pressa, quas iconicas uocant ; cf. Drees, op. cit., 104 ; Gardiner, op. cit., 98,
160, 177, 181ff.
24.2 decemiugem
In spite of Nero's bad press in the sources it ought to be noted that
driving a ten-horse team presupposes a high degree of proficiency.
quamuis id ipsum in rege Mithradate carmine quodam suo reprehendisset

Nothing more is known of this poem but Suetonius' language indicates a
satirical piece. On Nero's poetry see s.52 with H. Bardon, La Littérature
latine inconnue I] (1956), passim.
sed excussus curru ac rursus repositus, cum perdurare non posset, destitit
anie decursum ; neque eo setius coronatus esi
For the same story cf. Dio 63.14.1. For Nero's Olympic victories. see
above, 141.
decedens
There has been much difficulty in deciding the meaning of this participle.
Two renditions are possible : (i) “as Nero left Olympia," where decedens is
clearly related to Olympiis in the previous sentence; (ii) ‘as Nero left
Greece,’ where the participle is related not to the immediate local context,
but to the broader concept of Nero's presence in Greece. Bentley's emen-
dation, decedensque inde, is an attempt to press the first alternative, which
is supported by both Gardiner, op. cit., 163, and Drees, op. cit., 156, the
latter even arguing that the liberation of Greece occurred at Olympia —
plainly against the facts. Further, Vogt, op. cit., 34 n.137, believed that the
whole of the last two sentences in s.24.2 is a mixture of confusion and error
on Suetonius’ part. Cf. M. Holleaux, Discours de Néron in BCH 12
(1888), 521. And Dio's statement, 63.14.1, that a gift of HSlm. was made
by Nero to the judges at Olympia has been regarded as a parallel of
Suetonius’ item, donauit..iudices..pecunia grandi, s.24.2 ; cf. Heinz, Das
Biid, 59.
For resolution of the problem attention must be turned to the final sen-
tence of s.24.2 which must be regarded as definitive evidence in favour of
the second alternative: guae beneficia e medio stadio Isthmiorum die
pronuntiauit. The conferment at Isthmia of Greek independence can be
corroborated from sources other than Suetonius ; below. If the liberation is
an Isthmian event then so too the rewards to the judges. There can be no
separation of items in view of the force of Suetonius’ simulque : s.24.2.
Thus the possibility of conflation by Suetonius of Dio's source with the
source on the liberation is eliminated. Moreover, there can be little sense to
the idea that the Olympic judges were rewarded at the Isthmian games, but
there is every reason for the Isthmian judges to be so honoured. The belief
should stand that on separate occasions both Olympic and Isthmian judges
received grants of cash.
In support of the second alternative an argument from the technical usage
of decedere can be urged. The verb has the special meaning of leaving a
province on the expiration of a term of office; TLL s.v.: 'saepe i. q.
"Roman redire," ' and this sense is not at all uncommon in Suetonius. Out
of twelve usages of the word, the present text excluded, six are concerned
with the meaning just mentioned; cf. especially Ca/ig. 48.1 ; Titus 5.2.
Thus it seems reasonable to invoke this connotation here to maintain that
decedens means ‘as Nero left Greece.’
prouinciam uniuersam libertate donauit

Cf. Plin. NH 4.22 ; Plut. Zit. Flam. 12.8 ; Pausan. 7.17.3 ; Dio 63.11.3 ;
SIG? 814 ( 2 Smallwood, Documents, no. 64) lines 14, 43ff.
The province of Achaea received autonomy and immunity from taxation
as a result of Nero's act; $7G? 814 /L.c., and as compensation for the loss
of one of its provinces the senate received Sardinia from the emperor ;
Pausan. /c. ; cf. Momigliano, 735f. The ceremony of liberation probably
took place on 28th November, 67, at a second and irregularly scheduled
celebration of the Isthmian games ; see Latomus 37 (1978). A record of the
imperial summons to the Greeks to meet at the Isthmus, followed by Nero's
speech made at the ceremony and a decree in Nero's honour voted by the
citizens of Acraephia survives in S/G? 814. Greek independence, however,
was shortlived, for Vespasian subsequently revoked Nero's directive,
perhaps in 74 by which time Sardinia was again under senatorial control ;
Pausan. 7.7.14; Suet. Vesp. 8.4 with Braithwaite ad /oc.; W. Eck,
Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian (1970), 2. Nero's arrangement must
have been impracticable both externally from the viewpoint of the Empire
as a whole, and internally as far as Greek self-government was concerned.

Vespasian's alleged reason for the cancellation of the liberation was in fact
internal dissension within Greece ; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.41 ; cf. Pausan. £.c.
Yet the notion of Greek independence may not have been suddenly con-
ceived by Nero, but may have followed from his long-lasting and genuine
philhellenic sentiments.
The view has recently been put forward that Nero's motive in freeing
Greece was to establish the area as a second imperial capital, to create, that
is, un empire bicéphale" ; Cizek, 218f. There is no evidence for this view
whatsoever. The literary sources are in agreement that cultural reasons
alone lay behind the visit to Greece and the declaration of independence
should be seen simply against this background. Serious imperial business
was not neglected during the tour: Vespasian was appointed to the com-
mand of the Jewish war from Greece, Suet. Vesp. 4.4-5, and there is every
probability that the Isthmus canal undertaking was a sensible endeavour;
cf. above, 115Íf. It can be expected that the literary tradition has emphasis-
ed the cultural (that is, disgraceful) aspects of the tour at the expense of the
prosaic continuation of imperial administration. Perhaps the financial sav-
ing to the Greeks through the cancellation of taxation — at a time of
economic weakness in Greece ; cf. Larsen, ESAR IV 465ff, with especially
Sen. Epp. Mor. 91.10 — was of more importance than is usually stated.
Note in this connection ps.-Luc. Nero | on the Corinthian canal.
There is no doubt that the Greeks responded enthusiastically to the
gesture of freedom made by Nero. His celebration as véoz “Hisog was not
confined to Acraephia (S/G? 814 line 34). Similar evidence comes from
Patrae, Sicyon (coins now available in Weinstock, DJ, plate 15, nos. 16,
17), and from Corinth itself (a rare coin issue with the legend 1vPPITER
LIBERATOR ; cf. H. Mattingly, JRS 10 [1920], 38). Indeed, Weinstock, DJ,
144, proceeding from Mattingly, art. cit., suggests that Nero had already
encouraged consecration of himself as Jupiter Liberator before the Greek
tour, to judge from Tacitus' accounts of the deaths of Seneca and Thrasea
Paetus where in fact references to Jupiter Liberator do appear ; Tac. Ann.
15.64.2; 16.35.2. See in addition A. D. Nock, The Proem of Lucan in CR
40 (1926), 17ff, drawing attention to Cal. Sic. Eclog. 4.142, and BMC
Lydia 75 for the legend zEvs NERO CAESAR. At Athens Nero was designated
Dionysus Eleutherios, and even in Suetonius’ own day Plut. De Ser. Num.
Vind. 32 provides evidence that the Greeks still regarded Nero with unusual
approval. Cf. Charlesworth, JRS 40 (1950), 73. This was, however,
probably due more to the display of philhellenism than to the practical ef-
fects of the liberation. After alt, a fair number of Greek cities, including
Athens and Sparta, were already free, though it is difficult to draw up a
complete register for the period before 67 ; see J. Colin, Les villes libres de
l'Orient gréco-romain et l'envoi au supplice par acclamations populaires,
Collection Latomus 82 (1965), 52ff, with especially Plin. NH 4.5ff.
For the possible presence of Plutarch at Delphi and Corinth during
Nero's tour see C. P. Jones, Plutarch and Rome (1971), 16ff.
iudices ciuitate Romana et pecunia grandi

The judges are those of the Isthmian games ; cf. above, 145. The chief
officia] was the agonothetes, the selection of whom depended heavily on the
city council of Corinth, if indeed the council did not actually elect the man.
Under the agonothetes was a board of hellanodikai, probably ten in num-
ber; cf. above, 143. Also attested are the isagogeus, an assistant to the
agonothetes and probably a young man or even a child ; the pyrophorus,
also perhaps a child ; and possibly a religious officer, the agoranomus ; see
L. Robert, REG 79 (1966), 738ff ; J. H. Kent, Corinth VIII, pt. 3, The In-
scriptions (1966), 30 ; D. J. Geagan, Notes on the Agonistic Institutions of
Roman Corinth in GRBS 9 (1968), 68ff.
The office of agonothetes was the most honorific in Corinthian public
life, but one which also imposed great financial liability on its holder ; cf.
Kent, op. cit., 29ff ; Geagan, art. cit., 69. In office in 67 may have been a
certain Ti. Claudius Dinippus (Kent, op. cít., 31) but this is not positive. A.
B. West, Corinth VIII, pt. 2, Latin Inscriptions (1931), 73, ascribed his
agonothesia to a date in the early years of Nero's reign, arguing from his
tenure some time in the forties of a sacerdotium uictoriae Britannicae. At
any rate, it is clear that Dinippus already held the citizenship before his
presidency of the games because Corinth was of colonial status, which
means that those who received citizenship were non-Corinthian officials.
But Dinippus is relevant for the gift of cash. This appears, as presented by
Suetonius, to be an example of Nero's extravagance, but there is no
qualification to the effect that the agonothetes was expected to defray the
costs of the Isthmian festival. It is probable that the Isthmia at which Nero
liberated Greece was an irregularly timed event and the second celebration
during the imperial visit ; see Latomus 37 (1978). The gifts of cash, there-
fore, may have been intended as reimbursement to the officials of the day
for the expenses of the second festival. This explanation might also account
for the gift of HSim. to the Olympic judges ; Dio 63.14.1.
e medio stadio
Plut. Tit. Flam. 12.8 says that the declaration occurred éni tix dyopac
and is supported in this by S/G? 814 line 7 ; cf. Holleaux, art. cit., 521.
Isthmiorum die
Cf. Plut. Tit. Flam. 12.8. For the date see above, 145.
sua ipsa uoce

Cf. Plut. Tit. Flam. 12.8 ; SIG? 814 lines 7-8. M. Holleaux, Discours
prononcé par Néron à Corinthe en rendant aux Grecs la liberté in Etudes
d'épigraphie et d'histoire grecques | (1938), 179, rightly concluded that
Nero's speech was his own composition. Its tone is compared with that feel-
ing for the grandiose implicit in s.52 and Tacitus' phrase incredibilium
cupitor, Ann. 15.42.4 ; cf. also O. A. W. Dilke. GR n.s. 4 (1957), 83.
Sections 25.1-2
Suetonius here provides one of the three main literary accounts for the
iselastic entry to their home cities of victors in the panhellenic games, the
other sources being Dio 63.20. of which more below. and Vitruvius 9,
praef. 1. which needs to be quoted in full : nobilibus athletis, qui Olympia,
Isthmia, Nemea uicissent, Graecorum maiores ita magnos honores con-
stituerunt, uti non modo in conuentu stantes cum palma et corona ferant
laudes, sed etiam, cum reuertantur in suas ciuitates cum uictoría, trium-
phantes quadrigis in moenia et in patrias inuehantur e reque publica per-
petua uita constitutis uectigalibus fruantur. Cf. Plut. Quaest. Conu. 2.5.2 ;
Plin. Epp. 10.118.1 ; Diod. Sic. 13.827.
Suetonius’ account is virtually exactly the same as that in Dio, 7c, so
that the possibility of a common source strongly presents itself ; cf. Heinz,
Das Bild. 60. This supposition is likelier than that Dio followed Suetonius
because there are differences of detail between the two versions and Dio is
characteristically far more rhetorical in his presentation. Yet little more can
be done than to cross-reference the similarities.
Suetonius’ style in this passage is similar to that used in those portions of
the biography which deal with the matricide and the demise of Nero: the
extended, detailed narrative style as opposed to the more prevalent, and
prosaic, cataloguing style. [t contrasts significantly with the nature of the
conclusion of s.25.2, which is very generalised, the break occurring at sacra
coronas. Likewise, Dio's version stops at a similar point in the common
narrative with the episode of Larcius Lydus following ; cf. above, 19 n.36 ;
134.
From the surprisingly little comparative material available it appears that
Nero's iselastic entrances in [taly were on a far more lavish scale than was
usual and this was perhaps the result of the admixture to the iselastic en-
trance itself of certain Roman triumphal elements ; cf. Gagé, op. cit., 661f
(though there is no evidence to suggest that Nero was parodying either
Greek or Roman traditionalism, as Gagé states). But there is no indication
of a pension being sought or received by Nero from the cities where the en-
trances were made, a point worth making to offset the strong tradition in
the literary record of Nero's rapacity (see below, 185fD.
For iselastic references see the notices in RE V s.v. Eloedactixos áytov ;
Jones, The Greek City (1940), 232f ; Sherwin-White ad Plin. /.c. ; cf. H. S.
Versnel, Triumphus (1970), 155ff.
25.1 Reuersus e Graecia Neapolim

Here there is no chronological break in Suetonius’ narrative. The arrival
belongs to early December, 67 ; cf. Latomus 37 (1978). For Nero and
Naples see above, 124f.
quod in ea primum artem protulerat

Cf. above, 124f.
albis equis
Cf. Diod. Sic. 13.82.7, where the entry into Agrigentum of the victor
Exainetos in a quadriga to the accompainment of three hundred chariots
drawn by white horses, is offered as an instance of Sicilian extravagance at
the close of the fifth century B.C. ; for white horses as a triumphal charac-
teristic, Dio 43.14.3 ; Tibull. 1.7.7f ; Plin. Pan. 22.1.
disiecta parte muri, ut mos hieronicarum est

Cf. Dio 63.20.1 in reference to Nero's entry at Rome. Dio makes no
mention of the entrances at Naples, Antium, and Albanum. In reality it is
unknown how ancient the custom was of entering the city through a
breached wall. This is the first specifically attested example ; cf. Gardiner,
op. cit., 66f, though observe Plut. Quaesr. Conu. 2.5.2. However, given
Suetonius’ general interest in spectacula (above, 80f) his statement should
be trusted; cf. Versnel, op. cit., 155 n.l ; conira Frazer ad Ovid Fasti
6.724 ; DS s.v. ‘Olympus’ (G. Caspar).
150 SUETONIUS LIFE OF NERO
hieronicarum
See above, 143.
Antium
See above, 45, 70.
Albanum
For the imperial villa in the ager Albanus see Blake, Construction, 134ff.
Romam
The arrival antedated Ist January, 68 ; see Latomus 37 (1978).
eo curru
Cf. Dio 63.20.3, speaking of Augustus' triumphal chariot and adding
that Nero was accompanied by the citharoedus Diodorus. PIR? D 95.
et in ueste purpurea distinctaque stellis aureis chlamyde

Cf. Dio 63.20.3. The purple robe is first mentioned here for iselastic vic-
tors; Gardiner, op. cit., 66f.
coronamque capite gerens Olympiacam

Cf. Dio 63.20.3 ; 9.3, referring to the crown of wild olive from which the
Olympic crown was made; Pausan. 5.7.7.
dextra manu Pythiam

Cf. Dio 63.20.2; 9.3. The Pythian crown was made of laurel from
Tempe ; Pausan. 10.7.8.
praeeunte pompa ceterarum cum titulis, ubi et quos quo cantionum quoue
fabularum argumento uicisset
Cf. Dio 63.20.2.
plausoribus
Cf. Dio 63.20.5, speaking of the whole population hailing Nero.
Augustianos
For the attendance of the Augustiani on Nero during the Hellenic tour
see Dio 63.8.3, and their later proposal to erect a colossal statue of the em-
peror, 63.18.3 ; cf. above, 127f.
25.2 diruto circi maximi arcu

Evidently the circus had been rebuilt since the great fire ; cf. above, 100.
The arcus seems to be the gateway in the eastern end of the circus ; Platner,
Ashby, Topographical Dictionary, s.v. 'circus maximus’.
per Velabrum forumque Palatium et Apollinem petit

Cf. Dio 63.20.4, where the order of the procession is given as circus,
forum, Capitol, palace. Although the evidence is not prolific Nero's route
does not appear to have been that used in a normal triumphal procession.
The route usually began from the Campus Martius, of which there is no
mention here, and ended at the temple of Jupiter on the Capitol not that of
Apollo on the Palatine. The complete route taken by Nero has been recon-
structed as follows: Porta Capena, Circus Maximus, Velabrum, Forum,
Sacra Via, Temple of Apollo ; cf. E. Makin, The Triumphal Route in JRS
11 (1921), 25ff with especially the map preceding 25.
Since the Velabrum constituted an important manufacturing and com-
mercial centre, situated in the low ground between the Palatine and the
Capitol, the course of the procession can perhaps be connected with Nero's
popularity with the p/ebs. For Augustus’ temple to Apollo see Platner,
Ashby, Topographical Dictionary, s.v. templum' with RG 19.
Nero's preoccupation with Apollo and the use of Apolline symbolism
throughout the reign reveal, on one hand, a return to Augustan symbolism
(cf. Weinstock, DJ, 383) and, on the other, focus attention on the personal
importance to Nero of aestheticism. The association with Apollo depends
primarily on cantus, and there is no conscious pursuit of consecration as
Apollo by Nero for its own sake ; cf. below, 288ff. For a description of the
Apollo evidence see Gagé, op. cit., 650fT.
incedenti passim uictimae caesae sparso per uias identidem croco in-
gestaeque aues ac lemnisci et bellaria
Cf. Dio 63.20.4.
sacras coronas in cubiculis circum lectos posuit

Cf. Dio 63.21.1, with the variation that the crowns were placed around
the obelisk in the circus.
statuas suas citharoédico habitu

In view of the certain survival of coins depicting Nero as Apollo
citharoedus (below), it cannot be doubted that this reference to statues of
Nero as Apollo is right, but the survival of such work seems to be rare. As
one possible example, a statue of Apollo citharoedus in the Vatican museum
has been described as an idealised representation of Nero; R. West, Rómni-
sche Portrát-Plastik (1933), 230 with plate LXV 274.
qua nota etiam nummum percussit

Gagé, op. cit., 650 n.2, notes that Suetonius appears to suggest that these
coins were produced in 68, but this does not take account of Suetonius’
divergence at this stage of the text from the source previously used in com-
mon with Dio; see above, 119ff. This item, a rare literary reference to a
coin issue (cf. Suet. Aug. 94.12), should be understood as Suetonius’ own
independent inclusion.
In actuality, the exact dates of the production of the coins showing Nero
as Apollo citharoedus at Rome and Lugdunum are far from clear, even
though the coins themselves are well known ; BMC I 218, 259. But they are
at any rate earlier than 68 ; cf. BMC ic.
The type is a clear statement of divine attributes in Nero, cf. Sutherland,
Coinage, 170 ; but it does not represent actual deification. "Our literary
sources suggest that it was less the role of Apollo as god than of Apollo as
musician and charioteer which Nero coveted," J. M. C. Toynbee, Num.
Chron.® 7 (1947), 137. It is possible that the coin types were based on
statue representations of Nero, but the present text itseif does not imply this
as stated by P. V. Hill, Num. Chron.? 2 (1962), 138f.
25.3 ut conseruandae uocis gratia

Cf. above, 126.
multisque uel amicitiam suam optulerit uel simultatem indixerit, prout

quisque se magis parciusue laudasset
For a similar statement cf. Dio 63.15.2. The expression at first sight ap-
pears to conflict with s.39.1, mirum et uel praecipue ... which is demon-
strably valid. It should therefore refer only to an aesthetic context, that is,
praise or criticism of Nero as artist. It is difficult to find case histories
which are pertinent: Seneca was alleged to have criticized Nero's singing,
Tac. Ann. 14.52.4, but this can have had little, if anything, to do with his
political eclipse. Annaeus Cornutus suffered exile after the wry comment on
Nero's proposed four hundred books of epic on Roman history, Dio 62.29,
but there may have been other factors at play here. The text may be an
exaggerated reflection of elements in the Suetonian uita Lucani, where the
ideas of praise, reward, criticism, and punishment are all apparent ; but this
is no more than conjecture.
26.1 Petulantiam, libidinem, luxuriam, auaritiam, crudelitatem sensim qui-

dem primo et occulte et uelut iuuenile errore exercuit, sed ut tunc quo-
que dubium nemini foret naturae illa uitia, non aetatis esse
This sentence lays the foundations for the central portion of the bio-
graphy. In succeeding sections each of the five designated topics is ex-
panded and exemplified: petulantia, ss.26.1-27.3; libido, ss.28.1-29 ;
luxuria, ss.30.1-32.1 ; auaritia, ss.32.2-32.4 ; crudelitas, ss. 33.1-39.3 (by
far the longest). In contradistinction to the less culpable probra, these topics
may constitute scelera (above, 119).
In parading examples of these topics Suetonius draws on items from pu-
blic and private life with no discrimination. No distinction is made between
‘policy’ and ‘private behaviour. The reason is clear: the five subject
headings are naturae ... uitia, defects in personality, which are responsible
for political/ administrative measures taken by Nero as well as for actions
unconnected with public life. Suetonius does not allow for such features as
consiliar debate or the like. Rather, the princeps himself is personally ac-
countable for ail actions which transpire during his period of preeminence.
The text depends on a belief in human personality and component parts
thereof. Suetonius nowhere offers a programmatic statement of his con-
ception of character but the continual recurrence of facets of behaviour such
as these five rubrics represent allow the appraisal of character to be made.
The frequency with which natura (also, but to a lesser extent, ingenium, cf.
Howard, Jackson, s.vv.) appears in the Lives makes it clear that he had
definite views on some aspects of the imperial personalities whose actions
he narrates even if they are never totally made explicit. The manner in
which personality is judged is through an examination of the presence or
absence of qualities or their opposites or related concepts. There is,
therefore, a kind of stereotyped framework against which character can be
assessed. Cf. above, |4ff.
In this connection, /ibido demands a special note. Suetonius is sometimes
condemned as a scandal-monger because of the inclusion in his work of
details of private life which are scurrilous and in poor taste. In an extreme
form he has been accredited with a "penis fixation" and homosexual ten-
dencies (T. F. Carney, How Suetonius' Lives Reflect on Hadrian in Proc.
Afric. Class. Assoc. 11 [1968], 7f). These latter assessments are made on
the basis of a collection of a number of particularly scabrous details and the
154 SUETONIUS' L/FE OF NERO
fact that Suetonius often makes mention of the homosexual activities of the
emperors. Such views, however, break down on logical consideration or the
application of analogy. Since, for instance, cruelty is a favourite imperial
subject the psychoanalytical conclusion would be, of necessity, that
Suetonius was a sadist. Yet for this of course there is no evidence and no
one suggests so. There can be no doubt that Suetonius' attention was at-
tracted by certain stories involving the sexual behaviour of the emperors
whereas other topics — say, foreign campaigns or senatorial debates —
held no fascination. Three reasons may be invoked. Firstly, the con-
sideration of biographical relevance, for which the generic difference be-
tween history and biography is sufficient explanation ; cf. above, 14.
Secondly, there is the fact that the sexual activities themselves are seen as
an important means of demonstrating personality. This proposition becomes
clear not just from the inclusion of /ibido in the present text, but from the
knowledge that it forms a regular topic throughout the corpus. It appears in
ten out of the twelve biographies and such a recurrence cannot be dismissed
without some rationale. [t has to be considered along with other subjects as
part of the stereotyped framework. Finally, on a more mundane level,
Suetonius would hardly have included sexual material had there been no
market for it. Thus, having decided on a sexual rubric as part of the
biographical schema, he may then have, if not invented detail, at least made
the most of the material available to him to cater for that interest. This
gives an explanation of why Suetonius is the least reticent of the three
major sources on the item of incest between Nero and Agrippina (s.28.2),
and why he includes the item on the Vestal virgin Rubria (s.28.1). The
similarities of content between Suetonius, Tacitus, and Dio show the
existence of a common stock of information on sexualia as on everything
else. Most of Suetonius’ episodes in the /ibido section came from this stock,
yet Suetonius tends to embellish where Tacitus is more sober or discreet
(e.g.. on Sporus). The absence in Suetonian biography of a moralising
element explains this difference, whereas Dio, on occasion even more ex-
plicit than Suetonius (e.g., on Sporus' wedding) reflects the taste of a later
age. Suetonius, therefore, may have deemed it possible, within the bio-
graphical scheme of things. to capitalise on the type of material likely to be
eschewed or minimised by Tacitus. However the explanation is made, it
does not seem appropriate to label Suetonius a gossip or pervert and leave it
at that.
Heinz, Das Bild, 25, observes that Suetonius makes a kind of apology for
Nero in the present text, sensim..exercuit, which is quickly “paralysed” by
the following clause, sed ut... esse ; cf. also s.22.1 primo clam ... affutu-
rum. The impression given by Suetonius is that he regarded the five
qualities as permanent features of Nero’s personality and the statement of
the excuse may be taken at face value. But perhaps too the phrase /uuenili
errore may have been introduced because Suetonius knew that the first and
main example of petulantia to come belonged to the very early period of the
reign.
post crepusculum statim adrepto pilleo uel galero popinas inibat circumque
uicos uagabatur ludibundus nec sine pernicie tamen, siquidem redeuntis a
cena uerberare ac repugnantes uulnerare cloacisque demergere assuerat,
tabernas etiam effringere et expilare
The demonstration of petulantia begins. The material in ss.26.1-27.1 has
three main elements, the noctural brawls, the episode of Iulius Montanus,
and the licence in the theatre. Such elements are found also in Tacitus, Anm.
13.25, and Dio, 61.8-9 ; cf. Heinz, Das Bild, 25ff. Heinz pointed out in his
examination of the respective presentations of this material that Suetonius
steers a mid-course between Tacitus, more sober and less interested in
detail, and Dio, the reverse. The common source behind the three versions
may have been the elder Pliny. He knew at least of Nero's nocturnal jaunts
and speaks, NH 13.126, of a medicinal remedy used by Nero to heal bruises
received in scuffles and scrapes. The relevant passages from Tacitus and Dio
give a date of 54/5 for the material, though an item at Tac. Ann. 13.47.2
shows similar behaviour by Nero dating to 58. These indications are
basically consistent with Pliny's phrase, /.c, initio imperii. The availability
of a date in turn supplies perspective to Suetonius' description here and off-
sets the implication that petulantia was an aspect of personality illustrated
throughout the reign.
post crepusculum
Cf. Tac. Ann. 13.25.2; 13.47.2 ; Dio 61.8.1 ; 9.2.
adrepto pilleo uel galero

To provide a disguise ; cf. Tac. Ann. 13.25.1 ; Dio 61.8.1 ; 9.2. B. Bald-
win, Ancient Society 3 (1972), 155f, collects examples of other emperors
savouring the "low life" of the city in disguise, and suggests a serious pur-
pose — to sample popular opinion.
popinas inibat circumque uicos uagabatur

Cf. Tac. Ann. 13.25.1 ; Dio 61.8.1 ; T. Kleberg, Hotels, restaurants et
cabarets dans l'antiquité romaine (1957), 16f; above, 103.
siquidem redeuntis a cena uerberare ac repugnantes uulnerare cloacisque

demergere assuerat
Cf. Tac. Ann. 13.25.1 ; Dio 61.9.2. Suetonius and Dio attribute more
direct responsibility to Nero for violence than Tacitus, one instance of the
latter's more restrained narrative; Heinz, Das Bild, 28.
tabernas etiam effringere et expilare

Cf. Tac. Ann. 13.25.1 ; Dio 61.9.3.
quintana domi constituta

Tacitus and Dio have no mention of this market. It may be surmised that
the item is a detail from the common tradition rather than Suetonius' in-
vention.
26.2 ac saepe in eius modi rixis

Cf. Plin. NH 13.126, nocturnis grassationibus, conuerberata facie.
a quodam laticlauio
The man is identifiable as C. Iulius Montanus who had held presenatorial
positions and was quaestor destinatus at the time of his death ; Tac. Ann.
13.25.2 ; Dio 61.9.3 ; CIL XI 3884 ( = ILS 978) ; PIR? | 435 ; cf. Ogilvie,
Richmond ad Tac. Agric. 4.3.
cuius uxorem adtrectauerat

Cf. Dio 61.9.3. Tacitus has no mention of the wife ; she is unidentifiable.
prope ad necem caesus

Cf. Tac. Ann. 13.25.2, where the encounter is fortuitous and Nero the
aggressor; Dio 61.9.3, which is closer to Suetonius. Suetonius omits to
mention, as do the others, that Montanus committed suicide having
discovered the identity of his adversary ; cf. Tac. Ann. Lc. ; Dio 61.9.4.
quare numquam postea publico se illud horae sine tribunis commisit procul
et occulte subsequentibus
Tac. Ann. 13.25.3 speaks of a retinue of soldiers and gladiators.
clam gestatoría sella delatus in theatrum

Cf. Dio 61.8.2.
seditionibus pantomimorum e parie proscaeni superiore signifer simul ac

spectator aderat
Cf. Tac. Ann. 13.25.4 ; Dio 61.8.2 ; s.12.t.
et ipse iecit in populum atque etiam praetoris caput consauciauit

Suetonius alone allows Nero so much personal violence, perhaps ten-
dentiously.
27.2 Epulas a medio die ad mediam noctem protrahebat

Such meals were, of course, of inordinate length. The usual time for din-
ner was "at the end of the eighth hour in winter and of the ninth in sum-
mer," Carcopino, op. cit., 288, but there was no fixed duration. Tacitus
hardly speaks of Nero's cenae ; Dio has a few more details; cf. 61.4.3 ;
62.13.1 ; but Suetonius throughout the biography constantly refers to them,
perhaps as an indirect method of character portrayal; cf. for example,
ss.22.3 ; 40.4 ; below. 242.
refotus saepius calidis piscinis ac tempore aestiuo niuatis

[n the regular routine the bath preceded dinner and followed exercise;
Plin. Epp. 3.1.8 ; 9.36.3, with Sherwin-White, P/iny, 208f ; Carcopino, op.
cit., 284, 287.
cenitabatque nonnumquam et in publico

Cf. Tac. Ann. 15.37.t (64), ipse quo fidem adquireret nihil usquam
perinde laetum sibi, publicis locis struere conuiuia totaque urbe quasi domo
uti. Both authors may be guilty of overstatement.
naumachia praeclusa
There are two possible interpretations : (i) Suetonius could mean that
Nero held a banquet on the naumachia Augusti, for which see Platner,
Ashby, Topographical Dictionary, s.v.. and cf. above, 86, in which case a
comparison could be drawn with Dio 61.20.5, a feast given on the site of
Augustus’ naumachia in $9 ; (ii) there might be a connection with the
banquet given by Tigellinus in 64 which, Tacitus says, Ann. 15.37.3, oc-
curred in stagno Agrippae, and which Dio, 62.15.1, places in a flooded
theatre. Other resemblances between the account of Tigellinus' banquet and
$$.27.2-3 perhaps make the second alternative more likely. See further
below, 158f.
uel Martio campo uel circo maximo

There are no other accounts of cenae in these places.
inter scortorum totius urbis et ambubaiarum

This qualification is intended to apply to all of Nero's banquets in public,
which may well have been the case, but Tacitus, Ann. 15.37.6, refers
specifically to scorta at Tigellinus’ banquet in 64; cf. Dio 62.15.4. It
seems, therefore, that Suetonius may have generalised from one instance in
the common tradition of the Tigellinus episode.
ambubaiarum
Ambubaiae ... sunt mulieres uagae ac uiles, quibus nomen hoc casu uano-
rum et ebrietate balbutientium uerborum uidetur esse inditum. nonnulli
tamen ambubaias tibicines Syra lingua putant dici ; Porpyry ad Hor. Sat.
1.2, which mentions ambubaiarum collegia. The word is of Aramaic extrac-
tion; TLL s.v.
27.3 quotiens Ostiam Tiberi deflueret aut Baianum sinum praeternauigaret

Nero's pleasure in visiting Campania is well known (cf. above, 124f) and
again the following qualification dispositae ... could be a statement of fact.
But it can be noticed that neither of the other main sources mentions jour-
neys to Ostia or Baiae in this fashion. Cf. above, 157.
dispositae per litora et ripas deuersoriae tabernae parabantur

Here, however, another resemblance to the affair of 64 appears ; cf. Tac.
Ann 15.37.6, crepidinibus stagni lupanaria adstabani inlustribus feminis
completa et contra scorta uisebantur nudis corporibus. It appears the case
that Suetonius has used details from the common store of information on
Tigellinus' banquet and has inflated their importance through distribution
over several topographical sites for cenae presumably found in other sour-
ces.
deuersoriae tabernae
Probably private lodgings ; cf. T. Kleberg, Hotels, restaurants et cabarets
dans l'antiquité romaine (1957), 6f; 19f.
insignes ganea[e] et matronarum institorio copas

For a similar distinction between prostitutes and Roman ladies see Tac.
Ann. 15.37.6, quoted above. For prostitution, not unusual in lodging
establishments, Kieberg, op. cit., 89ff ; cf. 8ff.
imitantium atque hinc inde hortantium ut appelleret

Also at Tigellinus' banquet ; Tac. Ann. 15.37.7.
indicebat et familiaribus cenas

Dio, 62.15.2, says of the event of 64 that Tigellinus was appointed
éorcatwp of the banquet. Tacitus, Ann. 15.37.2, speaks of the feast being
‘prepared’ by him. It is likely, therefore, that Suetonius here has this oc-
casion in mind.
The number of possible and probable similarities to the other sources'
versions of Tigellinus' banquet which have been noticed above makes it vir-
tually certain that Suetonius knew of the event even if he has chosen to
conceal the fact behind a more generalised description of Neronian
outrageousness. Again the consideration of biographical relevance can be
invoked : Nero could hardly be ascribed ail the credit for the extravagance
of the occasion since this was really due to Tigellinus. But if the inference is
correct that Suetonius did know of the affair then it is necessary to draw at-
tention to the belief of W. Allen that Tigellinus’ banquet was not just an
isolated display of luxury and extravagance on the part of the Neronian
court circle, but was in fact a celebration of the Floralia, the festival of
prostitutes ; Numen 8 (1962), 991f.
The Floralia was celebrated from 28th April until 3rd May, so on the
chronology proposed earlier for 64 it is possible that Nero could have par-
ticipated that year in Rome ; see above, 127 ; 129ff. The festival was known
for its laxity and unrestraint ; /udi were held, continuing after nightfall ;
animals were let loose in the Circus Maximus and food was distributed for
ritualistic purposes ; actresses presented striptease shows, complete with ob-
scene gestures ; cf. Ovid Fasti 5.331ff ; Mart. | praef. ; 1.35.8 ; Aug. Ciu.
Dei 2.27 ; W. W. Fowler, The Roman Festivals (1899), 91ff. Allen noted
that Tacitus' account of the banquet of Tigellinus contains many features in
common with the celebration of the Floralia; hence his proposal. A
possible objection is that the animals used at the Floralia were hares and
goats and that ferae pugnaces were avoided, whereas Tacitus speaks of
uolucris et feras diuersis e terris et animalia maris , Ovid Fasti 5.3711Y ;
Tac. Ann. 15.37.5. But Martial, 8.67.4, does have ferae at the festival.
More seriously, none of the main sources actually mentions the festival. So
there are doubts ; but Suetonius' description of habitual gastronomic ex-
travagance may at least in part be based on a religious ceremony which the
main sources have either chosen to misrepresent or else taken over from a
common authority which was responsible for the misrepresentation. For
Suetonius, tendentiousness can be easily credited.
quorum uni mitellita quadragies sestertium constitit, alteri plurts aliquanto

rosaria
These celebrations are not paralleled elsewhere. However, on the Allen
theory perhaps a cena rosaria becomes significant ; references to roses are
frequent in Ovid's account of the Floralia (above, 159).
28.1 Super ingenuorum paedagogia

The demonstration of /ibido begins; (cf. above, 153f). A homosexual
rape of Britannicus by Nero is alleged at Tac. Ann. 13.17.3 (55). But see
below, 198.
et nuptarum concubinatus
For Nero's relationships before marriage with Poppaea and Statilia
Messalina, see below, 209 ; 212.
Vestali uirgini Rubriae uim intulit

This is not an insignificant charge on Suetonius’ part since the rape of a
Vestal amounted to a case of incestus ; cf. DS s.v. Vestalis". In such an in-
stance the offender was liable to punishment by scourging ; if the Vestal
had taken a lover she could be punished by immurement ; Dion. Hal.
2.67.3-4 ; Plut. Numa 10.4-7 ; Suet. Domit. 8.4. Yet there is no indication
here either of penalty or trial, and indeed the latter would have been dif-
ficult to achieve given that the Vestals fell under the jurisdiction of the prin-
ceps as pontifex maximus. The episode is not mentioned in other literary
sources (but cf. Aur. Vict. De Caes. 5.11), which is surprising upon
recollection that the scandal of the Vestals under Domitian left a substantial
literary record ; cf. Plin. Epp. 4.11 ; Suet. Domir. 8.3-5 ; Dio 67.37-4'. Yet
it cannot be dismissed as a fiction since practically every other item in
ss.28-29 can be substantiated in essence elsewhere.
Acten libertam paulum afuit quin iusto sibi matrimonio coniungeret, sum-
missis consularibus uiris qui regio genere ortam peierarent
A marriage was of course impossible as long as Acte remained a freed-
woman, and the point of Suetonius' statement is to condemn Nero for a
relationship with a woman of inferior social status which approached legal
respectability. Suetonius, however, is more the victim of his sources than
critically conscious because Vespasian, he informs, Vesp. 3, Caenidem ... li-
bertam ... in contubernium habuitque etiam imperator paene iustae uxoris
loco, with no trace of disapproval.
Dio, 61.7.1, says that Acte was an Asian slave sold to Rome and adopted
into the Attalid family because of Nero's interest in her. Suetonius is less
forthright. Acte may have been freed by Claudius since her own freedmen
style themselves ‘Tiberius Claudius’; thus Stein, P/R? C 1067. The
relationship with Nero began in 55, Dio /.c ; Tac. Ann. 13.12.1, and be-
came of political as well as emotional importance to Nero. Conducted clan-
destinely at first the affair was regarded by Agrippina as an obstacle to her
own ascendancy ; for this reason it was encouraged by Seneca and Burrus ;
Tac. Ann. 13.12-13. [t continued until 58 when Nero began his liaison with
Poppaea and perhaps into the following year when Seneca again used Acte
to counteract Agrippina's incestuous advances to Nero ; Tac. Ann. 13.46.4 ;
14.2.2 ; cf. below, 163. Acte outlived Nero, s.50, but little else is known
about her. She came to acquire estates at Puteoli, Velitrae, in Sardinia and
perhaps Egypt; P/R £c. It seems unlikely that her position amounted to
that of an Augusta, as thought by Weaver, Familia Caesaris (1972), 170,
222.
puerum Sporum
Sporus is known chiefly as the homosexual partner of Nero. The present
text suggests that he was still young at the time of his castration, probably
65 (below) and nothing is known of him before his association with Nero.
He remained a member of the imperial retinue until Nero's death ; cf.
$8.46.2 , 48.2 ; 49.3, and then became associated with Nymphidius Sabinus
and Otho; Plut. Gaíb. 9.3 ; Dio 64.8.3. In 69, in preference to portraying
an obscene role on stage, he committed suicide ; Dio 64.10.1 ; PIR' S 582 ;
RE s.v. Tacitus nowhere mentions Sporus.
exectis testibus
Cf. Dio Chrysos. Orat. 47.14; Dio 62.28.2, explaining that the
castration was subsequent to Poppaea's death in 65 ; 63.13.1. For echoes of
Suetonius, Aur. Vict. De Caes. 5.17 ; Anon. Epit. de Caes. 5.7.
cum dote et flammeo per sollemni-« a2» nuptiarum celeberrimo officio de-
ductum ad se pro uxore habuit
Suetonius does not make it clear that the choice of Sporus as partner for
Nero depended, allegedly at least, upon his resemblance to Poppaea ; Dio
62.28.2 ; 63.13.1 ; cf. Plut. Galb. 9.3. For Sporus’ homosexual role as
‘wife’ see also Dio 63.13.2.
Mention of specific elements of a normal marriage ceremony is certainly
intended by Suetonius to heighten the outrageousness of Neronian /ibido in
general and the present episode in particular. But an argument has been
made for associating the conventional marriage appurtenances with an
initiation ceremony into some mystery religion; J. Colin, Juvénal et le
mariage mystique de Gracchus in Atti della Accademia delle Scienza di
Torino, Classe di Scienzi mor. stor. e fil. 90 (1955/6), 114ff. Allen, art.
cit., 106, has gone further, claiming that Sporus here was being initiated by
Nero into the Mithraic grade 'Nymphus,' a union by marriage with Mithras.
It is known that in such a rite the bride-initiate wore a veil ; this is demon-
strated by a mural from the S. Prisca Mithraeum on the Aventine ; cf. M. J.
Vermaseren, Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae
I (1956), 480.6. The case of course cannot be proved, but the possibility of
Mithraic initiation exists. Dio refers to the marriage, apparently including it
among the events of the Hellenic tour with Tigellinus officiating at the
ceremony ; 62.28.3; 63.13.1.
extatque cuiusdam non inscitus iocus bene agi potuisse cum rebus humanis,
si Domitius pater talem habuisset uxorem
Cf. Dio 62.28.3a.
28.2 Augustarum ornamentis

Cf. Dio Chrysos. Orat. 21.7, add’ éxeivog ye xai tas dv tj) xegaAj) tpiyac
ótexéxputo, xai matdioxar 7jxoAoUÉ0vv, dnote fadilor, xai aunetyeto &a07ra
yuvaineiav, xai ta ye àAÀAa ottws nvayxaleto nottiv.
circa conuentus mercatusque Graeciae

During the Hellenic tour Sporus was chaperoned by Nero's magistra
libidinum, Calvia Crispinilla (on whom at a later date see 4JP 93 [1972],
451ff) ; Dio 63.12.3-4. But the phrase conuentus mercatusque is strange:
conuentus might be taken to mean local Greek assemblies officially visited
by Nero (cf. TLL s.v. ‘conuentus'), but it is difficult to see what Nero was
doing in Greek markets. The details are not preserved elsewhere.
circa Sigillaria
For the Sigillaria and the Saturnalia cf. Macrob. Sat. 1.10.24 ; 11.46-
50 ; Suet. Claud. 5; RE IV s.v. 'Sigillaria'.
nam mairis concubitum appetisse

The allegations of incest between Nero and Agrippina appear in all three
major sources, Tacitus, Ann. 14.2, making it the subject of a discussion of
his source materials. According to him, (i) Cluvius Rufus believed that
Agrippina made incestuous advances to Nero; Ann. 14.2.1 ; (ii) Fabius
Rusticus gave the opposite line ; Ann. 14.2.3 ; (iii) the bulk of authorities
and rumour supported Cluvius; Amn. 14.2.4. Tacitus himself is non-
committal in the sense that he does not say explicitly whether the stories
were believed by him, yet implicitly he conveys the impression of inclining
towards the majority view. Dio on the other hand shows extraordinary in-
dependence of mind by stating that he does not believe that the approaches,
given in the Cluvian version, were ever made; 61.11.3-4. So Suetonius
seemingly follows the version of Fabius Rusticus, although dogmatism is
perhaps best avoided here because the nature of the biographical presen-
tation really demands that Nero be the instigator, not Agrippina. Some
allowance for personal judgement in the sources has to be made and it is
not possible, therefore, to believe that Suetonius made a general practice of
using Fabius' work. At most, it can be said that on one item he perhaps did
so partially ; see below, and above, 17.
The incestuous involvement was itself a final part of the regency struggle
in 58/9, Tac., Dio, //.c., though the earliest hints came in 55, Tac. Ann.
13.13.2.
et <ab> obtreciatoribus eius, ne ferox atque impotens mulier et hoc genere

gratiae praeualeret, deterritum
The Fabian version had it that Acte was responsible for deterring Nero
from the relationship with Agrippina; Tac. Ann. 14.2.3. Obtrectatoribus
may consequently be a rhetorical plural, referring to Acte in actuality, who
should then be conceded a greater political role than she is generally given
by Tacitus. On the other hand the plural may be genuine and an allusion to
Seneca and Burrus who, in the Cluvian version, used Acte against Agrip-
pina. The second alternative is more plausible.
Cluvius' record was that Acte spelled out to Nero the political dangers of
accepting Agrippina's approaches: the army would not tolerate an in-
cestuous princeps — and Agrippina was already boasting of the fact ; Tac.
Ann. 14.2.2. There is thus a resemblance between the Cluvian version and
the present text (ne ferox ...) which should indicate that Suetonius was
aware of both views on the whole matter. The entry on incest is therefore a
combination of materials.
nemo dubitauit
Suetonius is the least unequivocal of the three main accounts.
meretricem, quam fama erat Agrippinae simillimam, inter concubinas recepit

Cf. Dio 61.11.4, likewise, where Dio adds an admission of incest by
Nero, a detail avoided by Suetonius but which would have been welcome if
scurrility were the only criterion at hand. Thus nemo dubitauit is likely to
be a serious statement, not simple adherence to Fabius Rusticus. For con-
cubines, cf. Plin. Epp. 3.14.3.
29. quasi genus lusus excogitaret

Clearly a tendentious entry by Suetonius.
quo ferae pelle contectus emitteretur e cauea uirorumque ac feminarum ad

stipitem deligatorum inguina inuaderet
The same item appears in Dio, 63.13.2, under the year 67 — but the en-
try is perhaps digressive — and is preserved at Aur. Vict. De Caes. 5.7 ;
Anon. Epit. de Caes. 5.5. The association with Doryphorus (below) should
date the material before 62.
The phrase ferae pelle contectus inevitably recalls Tac. Ann. 15.44.6,
ferarum tergis contecti, and it is questionable whether this whole episode in
Suetonius and Dio is not really an embellishment of one of the punishments
suffered by the Christians in 64 (see above, 103f). Another possibility is
that the story may represent initiation into the Mithraic grade 'Leo', for
which see Allen, art. cit.. 106.
a Doryphoro liberto; cui etiam, sicut ipsi Sporus, ita ipse denupsit
Ti. Claudius Doryphorus (thus P. Ry/. 2.17.1) is mentioned only on this
occasion by Suetonius, but he served as Nero's a libellis and became both
wealthy and powerful ; Dio 61.5.4 ; Tac. Ann. 14.65.1. He is known from
papyri! to have owned estates tn Egypt on the pattern of other Neronian
favourites. Tacitus, /.c., alleges that he was murdered by Nero in 62. Cf.
PIR? D 194 ; Schumann, 49f.
The evidence that Doryphorus was an historical figure is overwhelming.
but this has not prevented the error of associating him with the Pythagoras
of Tac. Ann. 15.37. There, a marriage between Pythagoras and Nero is
described with an even fuller catalogue of wedding details than in Suetonius"
notice on the Nero-Sporus wedding ; above, 161f. This led Colin, art. cit.,
189f, to argue that again the concern is with a mystical marriage, and to
claim that since doryphori were officials in the cult of Cybele the marriages
to Pythagoras and Doryphorus were really one and the same event; in
Allen’s words, art. cit., 106 n.36, Doryphorus is "probably a generic, rather
than a personal, noun". While the idea of a ritualistic marriage can be

retained as a possibility, this view does not take account of Tacitus’ mention
of Doryphorus (c), nor the mention of Doryphorus in papyri.
No other source refers to a homosexual liaison between Nero and Do-
ryphorus, but both Tacitus and Dio have details of the relationship with
Pythagoras ; Tac. Ann. l.c. ; Dio 62.28.3 ; 63.13.2 ; 22.4 ; cf. also Oros.
7.7.2. In the first and second texts from Dio it is Pythagoras who is con-
wasted with Sporus, while the last reference shows that the relationship with
Pythagoras antedated that with Sporus. Further, Martial, 11.6.10, also
knew of Pythagoras as a homosexual partner of Nero. it appears probable,
therefore, that Suetonius has confused Doryphorus and Pythagoras ; thus
also Furneaux ad Tac. Lc. ; contra, Schumann, ic.
comperi
Personal intrusions by Suetonius are rare in the Lives. But if passages
such as s.57.2. and Domit. 12.2 are taken seriously, then the anecdote that
follows here must also be, despite its scabrous nature.
30.1 Diuitiarum et pecuniae fructum non alium putabat quam profusionem

The demonstration of /uxuria begins; above, |53ff.
sordidos ac deparcos esse quibus impensarum ratio constaret, praelautos

uereque magnificos qui abutereniur ac perderent
This opening anecdote is comparable to that at the beginning of s.38.1
in setting the tone of the forthcoming topic. Financial wastefulness is im-
mediately established as a concept through this illustration of reckless un-
concern for administration by Nero. The minimal value of the story as far
as public finance is concerned may be deduced from Tac. Ann. 15.18.4,
which shows exactly the opposite attitude : in 62 Nero set up a commission
on uectigalia, claiming to have subsidised the state revenues up until that
time to the tune of HS60m. a year, cum insectatione priorum principum qui
gravitate sumptuum iustos reditus antissent. The tradition of extravagance is
thus straightway suspect. Most of the exempla which follow in s.30 concern
private spending, monies from Nero's patrimonium not from the aerarium.
But the subsidies received by Tiridates were not from Nero's own pocket
(below, 166). If an increasing inability to distinguish between the fiscus and
the aerarium is generally accepted for Nero's, and certainly Suetonius’ own
time, then it is unlikely that Suetonius believed Nero's attitude to have
varied according to the context of the financial item, whether ‘private’ or
‘public.’ On finances in general see Warmington, 63ff.
166 SUETONIUS" LIFE OF NERO
laudabat mirabaturque auunculum Gaium nullo magis nomine, quam quod

ingentis a Tiberio relictas opes in breui spatio prodegisset
The association with Caligula is damning in itself. Suetonius is careful to
make the comparison only in the financial sphere, whereas Dio, 61.5.1,
speaks of a general emulation ; cf. Eutrop. 7.14.1 ; Oros. 7.7.1. For an
assessment of Caligula's finances, which concludes that his handling of
public expenditures was good and that private spending produced the
reputation of extravagance, see J. P. V. D. Balsdon, The Emperor Gaius
(1934), 180ff.
30.2 in Tiridatem, quod uix credibile uideatur, octingena nummum milia

diurna erogauit abeuntique super sestertium milies contulit
Cf. Dio 63.2.3 ; 6.5. Pliny, NH 30.16, suggests that Rome financed the
whole journey of Tiridates, magus ad eum (sc. Neronem) Tiridates uenerat
Armeniacum de se triumphum adferens et ideo prouinciis grauis. Hohl, 386,
interprets the present passage to mean that Nero paid for the Italian section
of the journey. On Tiridates’ reception see above, 89ff.
Menecraten citharoedum et Spiculum murmillonem triumphalium uirorum

patrimoniis aedibusque donauit
Menecrates is mentioned by Dio, 63.1.1, as a teacher of the cithara. For
Spiculus see below, 275. These gifts are otherwise unrecorded.
Only three persons. are known to have received the ornamenta trium-
phalia from Nero : Petronius Turpilianus, Ofonius Tigellinus, and M. Coc-
ceius Nerva ; see above, 99. These men all outlived Nero without loss of
their properties as far as is known. So if Suetonius' statement is true the uiri
triumphales must come from among those honoured by Claudius (Caligula
gave no triumphal awards) but must also be men who died under Nero. It
may be assumed that the estates given to the freedmen were confiscations,
the result probably of some capital conviction. The candidate who most
readily meets these conditions is Cn. Domitius Corbulo, awarded the trium-
phal insignia in 47 while legate of the army in Lower Gerrnany for the con-
struction of a canal between the Meuse and the Rhine ; Tac. Ann. 11.20.2 ;
Dio 60.30.5 ; A. E. Gordon, Univ. Cal. Pub. Class. Arch. 2 (1952), 319.
He died in 66, probably as a result of complicity in the conspiracy of
Vinicianus, for which see below, 220f. There were good grounds, therefore,
for the arrogation by Nero of his property, some of which may have been at
Peltuinum ; Groag, PR? C 142, citing /LS 9518. Of the other possibilities
none seems as suitable as Corbulo. Dates of death are unknown for P.
Graecinus Laco, PIR? G 202, Didius Gallus, P7R? D 70, Curtius Rufus,
PIR? C 1618 (cf. B. Thomasson, Die Statthalter der róm. Provinzen Nor-
dafrikas [1960], II 39), and P. Pomponius Secundus, P/R' P 563; RE
XXII s.v. Had the deaths of these men, however, been in any but normal
circumstances, some record might be expected in Tacitus. Q. Veranius died
in 57/8 (above, 111), but there were no suspicious circumstances, nor ís
there any evidence of confiscation. There is no need to believe, moreover,
that the donated estates were bequeathed to Nero. Veranius left little more
to Nero in his will than simple adulation, Tac. Aan. 14.29.1, for his
daughter Verania was wealthy enough in old age to become the victim of a
captator ; Plin. Epp. 2.20 ; this implies that her father's estate had been left
intact. The notion of confiscation from a proven conspirator is much
preferable. The conclusion will be that Suetonius, not unusually, has used a
rhetorical plural for what was in fact only one instance.
The gifts here mentioned by Suetonius constitute only a fraction of the
total attested and presumed personal benefactions. According to Tac. Hist.
1.20, Nero spent HS2200m. on gifts, and Galba later found it necessary to
call in from the recipients all except a tenth of what Nero had given ; Tac.
Le. ; Suet. Galb. 15.1 ; Plut. Galb. 16.2-3. The source and reliability of this
figure cannot be determined, but the known benefactions present a for-
midable catalogue. Dio, 61.5.4, records a gift to Doryphorus of HS10m.
(perhaps even more) and that freedman also possessed estates in Egypt
which may have been imperial grants ; cf. P/R? D 194 for papyrological
material. Nero's mistress Acte owned estates at Puteoli and Velitrae in Italy
as well as in Sardinia; CIL X 8046 ; 8049 . XI 1414 ; XV 7835 ; cf. X
7640; 7984. Imperial favour should again be assumed here. Various
scaenici and xystíci are noted as recipients by Suet. Ga/b. 15.1 ; cf. Plut.
Galb. 16.2-3. More specifically Sporus received a dowry for his ‘marriage’
to Nero, Dio 62.28.3; cf. above, 161f; and sums were given to im-
poverished senators, above, 76. In 55 gifts were made to Agrippina and
the potissimi amicorum ; Tac. Ann. 13.13.5 ; 18.1 ; and in 62 to Anicetus ;
Tac. Ann. 14.62.6. Also to be included is Seneca, whose vast wealth was the
result as much of imperial favour as of his own financial expertise. Within
four years of the reign he allegedly possessed a fortune of HS300m, and he
came to own land in Italy at Nomentum and in the ager Albanus besides
estates in Egypt; Tac. Ann. 13.42.6 ; Dio 61.10.3 ; Sen. De Vir. Beat.
17.1-2; Epp. Moral. 77.3; 104.1; 110.1; 123.1; Plin. NH 14.51;
Colum. De Re Rust. 3.3.3 ; PIR? A 617. Some of the estates were probably
lost after Burrus' death in 62 ; cf. G. M. Browne, Withdrawal from Lease in
BASP 5 (1958), 17ff. But similar gifts may have been made both to Burrus
and later Tigellinus.
Such munificence must have consumed vast sums of money, and the
literary tradition (as here) brands Nero as prodigal ; Tac. Ann. 16.3.1 ; Dio
63.17.1. In addition, the rigid financial policy of Vespasian is well-known
and appears to confirm this. But the wars of 68/9 must have had a serious
impact on the post-Nero financial situation, while Nero himself was at-
tentive to finance in the public sphere ; Tac. Ann. 13.31.2 ; above, 165.
Moreover, a cash surplus at the end of the reign would have been ab-
normal ; the monies supposedly squandered by Caligula existed only be-
cause of Tiberius' unusual thriftiness. Many of the gifts given by Nero came
from his personal fortune which was constantly being enlarged by normal
and legitimate means. The collective wealth of Agrippina, Britannicus, Oc-
tavia, and Poppaea must have fallen to him at least. Some gifts too must
have reverted to the fiscus when the recipients died, as perhaps with
Doryphorus. So liberality may have contributed to deteriorating conditions
in finance under Nero, but it is doubtful whether it was the cause of dif-
ficulties in the first place. See further below, 185ff.
cercopithecum Panerotem faeneratorem et urbanis rusticisque praediis locu-

pletatum prope regio extulit funere
Paneros is otherwise unknown. But the text need not be doubted in view
of the evidence collected in the previous note. The epithet cercopithecus
may be deliberately uncomplimentary as perhaps the labels citharoedus,
murmillo, faenerator ; Suetonius disapproves not so much of the gifts them-
selves as the social status of the recipients ; contrast the gifts to senators in
s.10.1 which are approved, and for the attitude, Plin. Epp. 8.6.
Section 30.3:
It is impossible to confirm or refute the information in this section. All

that can be done is to emphasise the element of hearsay (rraditur), and to
observe how several items here were copied by later chroniclers ; cf. Eutrop.
7.14.1 ; Oros. 7.7.3 ; Hier. Chron. 2080h. As a specific example of personal
extravagance by Nero note Plin. NH 37.20, sed Nero, ut par erat principem,
uicit omnes HS |x| capidem unam parando.
Mazacum
For this North African tribe see RE s.v. ‘Maxyes’.
Sections 31.1-2: The Domus Aurea
Suetonius’ description of the Domus Aurea is the principal surviving

literary account without which knowledge would be severely curtailed. There
are no other records in literature or archaeology, for instance, of the rotunda
or cenationes (below, 179f). Suetonius, however, has not provided a full
topographical survey in the way that the younger Pliny offers descriptions
of his properties (Plin. Epp. 2.17 ; 5.6.). Instead, he has selected those
details which are characteristic of the extravagance of the palace since his
immediate concern is still to illustrate Nero's /uxuria. Again it is well to
stress that attention is put on the relationship of personality to acta, not to
the acta themselves by Suetonius because the text here has met with un-
warranted censure through failure to appreciate the manner in which the
author worked. It is pointless to expect the kind of detail which literary con-
vention excludes. According to Tacitus C4nn. 15.42.1) the luxury of the
Domus Aurea was not unusual ; rather, it was the extent of land occupied in
the centre of Rome which caused surprise : Nero... extruxitque domum in
qua haud proinde gemmae et aurum miraculo essent, solita pridem et luxu
uulgata, quam arua et stagna et in modum solitudinum hinc siluae inde
aperia spatia et prospectus ... This view has been developed by modern
authorities and in consequence Suetonius has been accused, for instance by
Morford and Ward-Perkins (cited below), of misunderstanding the
significance of the palace. Boethius too speaks of an "incomplete, short
description" (*). This line of approach both disregards Suetonius’ bio-
graphical method and even misses the point of Tacitus' presentation. For in
the case of the latter, it is worth pointing out that the luxury of Neronian
society is one of the main themes of the later books of the Annals (cf. Sher-
win-White, Pliny, 431) ; hence, the attempt to emphasise the theme by ap-
pearing to minimise the luxury of the Domus Aurea should be regarded with
suspicion. The construction of such a vast estate was certainly novel, but to
contend that Suetonius was unaware of this is erroneous, as can be seen
both from the pasquinade quoted in s.39.2 (Roma domus fiet ...) and from
the present passage where there are several spatial details : de cuius spatio,
tanta laxitas, ad urbium speciem, rura ... uaria, maris instar. In fact, in
what may be termed the ‘digressive’ portion of ss.31.1-2, from de cuius
spatio to fluentes aquis, half of Suetonius’ concentration is directed here (°).
(4) Eranos 44 (1946), 447.

(5) Cf. P. GaiMar, Les Jardins romains? (1969). 344, remarking that Suetonius is upset
by the extent of the Domus Aurea and says nothing of its extravagance.
Nonetheless, in the first place Suetonius judged the building of the Domus
Aurea an extravagance. He dwells, therefore, on the unusual features of the
palace and even includes a final anecdote (eius modi... coepisse) consistent
with that idea. Boethius' studies have emphasised the rus in urbe nature of
the palace and the tradition of luxurious villa building to which it belongs.
This, however, does not reduce the luxurious element, for items such as the
colossus and rotunda and decorations surpassed existing standards, as
Boethius himself shows (5). It is legitimate, in consequence. for Suetonius to
take this line without seriously misinforming his readership. Yet he does so
not because he was a “prisoner of the moralists" (7) who opposed luxury
building, but as a result of deliberate choice in keeping with the per species
format of the biography. There is then no reason to imagine that the luxury
of the palace with its trappings of absolutism, was any less offensive to
society in Nero's reign than the extent of land appropriated for it (*). The
two were, after all, part of each other.
For the Domus Aurea and its significance see the following items of
bibliography to which reference will be made below : Blake, Roman Con-
struction ; A. Boethius, Nero's Golden House in Eranos 44 (1946), 442fT ;
‘Et crescunt. media pegmata celsa via’ in Eranos 50 (1952), 129ff ; The
Golden House of Nero (1960) ; K. Lehmann, The Dome of Heaven in Art
Bulletin 27 (1945), iff; H. P. L'Orange, Le Néron constitutionnel et le
Néron apothéosé in From the Collections of the Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek 3
(1942), 246ff ; “Domus Aurea — Der Sonnenpalast in Serta Eitremiana,
Symb. Osloen. Fasc. Supp. 11 (1942), 68ff; Apotheosis in Ancient Por-
traiture (1947) ; The Iconography of Cosmic Kingship (1953) ; W. L.
McDonald, Architecture of the Roman Empire | (1965) ; M. P. O. Morford,
The Distortion of the "Domus Aurea" Tradition in Eranos 66 (1968),
158ff; B. Tamm, Auditorium und Palatium (1963) ; J. M. C. Toynbee,
Ruler Apotheosis in Ancient Rome in Num. Chron.* 7 (1947), 126ff; E. E.
van Deman, The "Sacra Via’’ of Nero in MAAM 5 (1925), 115ff ; C. C.
van Essen, La Topographie de la Domus Aurea Neronis in Mededelingen der
Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen n.r. 17 (1954),
371ff; J. B. Ward-Perkins, Nero's Golden House in Antiquity 30 (1956),
209ff.
(6) Cf. H. P. L'ORANGE, The Iconography of Cosmic Kingship (1953). 30 nut

(7) M. P. O. MonrogD, Eranos 66 (1968), 179,
(8) J. B. Wanp-PrnkiNs, Anriquiry 30 (1956), 212. states that the extent of land ap-
propriated caused offence to "contemporary society". Unfortunately the phrase is not
defined. But reactions under Nero and Hadrian would hardly be the same.
31.1 Non in alia re tamen damnosior quam in aedificando

Apart from a very early initial period of inactivity Nero was a prolific
builder throughout the reign. From the construction of the wooden am-
phitheatre in 57 (above, 85) until his death public works were consistently
produced. The great fire of 64 provided a unique opportunity for the
development of the city on novel lines (above, 100f). But major works ap-
peared before the fire, for instance the Baths of Nero and the Macellum.
Money for these projects before 64 must have been readily available, yet
there is no hint in the sources of a shortage of cash before the great fire.
The extent of new and restorative building activity in Rome afterwards,
however, must have been far greater than previously, and probably the need
for cash became acute. Legitimately acquired sums could cover only a small
amount of building costs presumably, but there are few signs of forced con-
tributions (see below, 185ff). So it is likely that during the last four years of
the reign there were financial difficulties of considerable proportions depen-
dent essentially upon the fire of 64.
But whether Nero was wasteful of money (damnosior) with building
projects is a different matter. Objections on this score are not met in
authors other than Suetonius, and indeed a tradition existed which was
wholly favourable to the building achievement ; cf. Anon. Epit. de Caes.
5.2. Suetonius' own attitude is equivocal. In support of the contention here
he provides the chief example of private spending, the Domus Aurea, and
two examples of unsuccessful projects. Elsewhere, however, where building
can be seen to have benefitted the community, his attitude is favourable ; cf.
above, 100f. Clearly the question of utility decides the issue for Suetonius.
It seems doubtful, though, in the overall view that Nero's building policy in
itself was financially ruinous.
Complete lists and descriptions of Neronian buildings are given by Blake,
Roman Consiruction, 33ff ; cf. also F. C. Bourne, The Public Works of the
Julio-Claudians (1946), 49(T; Anderson, JRS 1 (1911), 173ff.
domum a Palatio Esquilias usque fecit, quam primo transitoriam

The Domus Transitoria was intended to link the Domus Tiberiana on the
Palatine with the imperially-owned hort! Maecenatis and other estates on
the Esquiline ; Tac. Ann. 15.39.1. It thus stretched over the intervening
valley for a distance of over a thousand meters ; McDonald, op. cit., 21. It
is not known when the project was undertaken, nor if it was brought to
completion. But after the great fire it gave way to the more splendid Domus
Aurea.
Detailed knowledge of the palace depends upon the evidence of ar-

chaeology since there is no literary description extant. Two sites have
produced remains. The first is on the southern side of the Palatine where
two levels of the Neronian palace were found beneath the Domus Flavia.
The principal feature discovered was a sunken garden with a nymphaeum at
one side, giving way to several rooms. The high quality of decoration was
particularly noticeable. On the higher level to the northeast was a portico,
filled in after the great fire. The second site is some four hundred meters to
the northeast of the nymphaeum where, beneath Hadrian's Temple of
Venus and Rome, were discovered two barrel-vaulted corridors crossing at
right-angles in a central rotunda. The use of costly marbles and luxurious
decorations was again in evidence. See Platner, Ashby, Topographical Dic-
tionary s.v. Domus Aurea’; Boethius, The Golden House of Nero (1960),
105f ; Ward-Perkins, art. cit., 213£ ; McDonald, op. cit., plate 21a and fig.
2; Boethius, op. cit., fig. 58.
Since the freedman Acratus was involved in the collection of works of art
before the great fire, there is reason to suppose that the Domus Transitoria
was the object of the search, as later the Domus Aurea ; see below, 189.
mox incendio absumptam

Cf. Tac. Ann. 15.39.1.
restitutamque auream nominauit

Work on the Domus Aurea seems to have begun immediately after the
fire of 64 under the direction of the architects Severus and Celer, pre-
sumably imperial freedmen ; Tac. Ann. 15.42.1. The project was intended to
perform the functions of the Domus Transitoria (above, 171) but the fire
provided the chance for the implementation of ideas more grandiose than
those contained in the previous palace. The reason for this may have been
mainly subjective : an absolutist wish on Nero's part to express visibly that
supremacy which had become increasingly apparent in the political sphere
since c.62, and with which the intention of the emperor to rename the city
after himself is clearly in keeping ; see below, 290f. But there may have
been a more pratical reason too. The significance of Tiridates' visit to Rome
in 66 was immense. The meeting between the Armenian king and the
Roman emperor was virtually unprecedented within recent diplomatic
history, and it offered hopes of a solution to a frontier problem of longstan-
ding. Success here could only react to the personal credit of Nero. Im-
pressiveness, therefore, may have been an aspect in Nero's political thinking
since 63, and Dio's account of the reception of Tiridates particularly

illustrates the lengths to which the Neronian government went to present
the front of world leadership and supremacy ; Dio 63.1ff ; see above, 89ff.
It is not impossible, then, that the Domus Aurea was intended to assist in
these demonstrations. Within two years the palace could not have been
completed but enough may have been visible to convey the desired im-
pression.
The most important archaeological contribution to knowledge of the
Domus Aurea has been the discovery in part beneath the Baths of Trajan of
a structure on the Esquiline which was probably part of the main palace
block. This building is not mentioned in the literary sources. The surviving
part consists of two wings, each containing many rooms, which focus on a
central hexagonal courtyard ; see McDonald, op. cit., plate 24. The structure
is on an east-west orientation and allowed views from the south facade of
the slopes of the Caelian. Although the general plan of the Domus Aurea
has been set in the tradition of late Republican and early imperial land-
scaped villa building, the Esquiline remains show novel features, such as the
courtyard itself, the octagon in the west wing, and the multiplicity of
polygonal rooms. Remains of the foundation walls of what was probably a
uiuarium on the Palatine and of a nymphaeum on the Caelian are among
other fragmentary discoveries. For a catalogue of all known buildings in the
overall complex and their archaeological records see van Essen, art. cit.,
383ff. and for descriptions of the Esquiline remains and the Italian villa
inheritance, McDonald, op. cit., 31ff ; Ward-Perkins, art. cit., 215 ; Blake,
Roman Construction, 46ff ; Boethius, op. cit., 94ff. Although the evidence of
Tac. Ann. 15.42.1 seems to confirm Suetonius’ impression that the Domus
Aurea was completed, this is doubtful ; Boethius, op. cit.. 127 ; below, 181.
auream
The epithet has caused controversy. One view suggests that it became the
name of the new palace from the gilded roof of the rotunda ; Lehmann, art.
cit., 22. Another, that in an allegorical and religious sense the adjective
refers to the light shed by Nero-Helios ; L'Orange, Serta Eitremiana
(1942). A third, that it forms part of the 'golden' imagery applied as flat-
tery to Nero with no religious overtones ; Boethius, Eranos 44 (1946), 458.
Gold should be associated with the Apollo symbolism of the reign (cf.
Toynbee, art. cit., 133) but it seems most logical to believe that the palace
took its name from the material appearance of the building, demonstrably of
superlative quality ; below, 179.
de cuius spatio atque cultu suffecerit haec ret< (> ulisse

Suetonius leaves the catalogue of reckless building projects to digress on
the material aspects of the Domus Aurea ; cf. above, 169f. The absence of
close verbal parallels in the other literary sources might indicate a fully
original piece of composition here.
uestibulum
The general location of the uestibulum is agreed upon, but the ar-
chitectural definition of the term is disputed. Van Deman showed that after
the great fire the sacra uia was replanned and reconstructed by Neronian ar-
chitects, the former winding street giving way to a straight avenue flanked
by extensive and impressive porticoes. This led upwards to the Velia where
the uestibulum was situated, covering a distance of more than a hundred
meters to the Palatine, except perhaps for the area of the Temple of Jupiter
Stator. The uestibulum was a columned courtyard in which stood the
colossus (but see below, 177) and served as a passage between the urban
area which lay in the direction of the Forum and the open areas of the
grounds of the Domus Aurea. Boethius has shown that this entrance unit
was fully in keeping with traditional Roman planning which allowed such
features for the reception of guests by the villa owner, though here the scale
was obviously far more lavish. A comparable instance is the use by Caligula
of the Temple of Castor and Pollux as the vestibule to his palace on the
Palatine ; Suet. Calig. 22 ; Dio 59.28. Van Deman's view was substantially
adhered to by, for example, Platner, Ashby, and Boethius. It depended on
an identification of Suetonius’ uestibulum with the inuidiosa atria of Mart
Spect. 2.3. Recently, however, Tamm has challenged this interpretation. In
her view the terms are not synonymous. An atrium existed distinct from the
uestibulum which should be regarded as a looser description of the complete
entrance unit incorporating the sacra uia between the porticoes, and the
facade of the atrium before which stood the colossus. For full discussion see
van Deman, art. cit., especially plates 61-4 ; Platner, Ashby, Topographical
Dictionary, s.v. Domus Aurea’; Blake, Roman Construction, 47 ; Tamm,
op. cit., 105; Boethius, Eranos 44 (1946), 455ff; Eranos 50 (1952),
131ff; The Golden House of Nero (1960), 109f.
in quo colossus CXX pedum staret ipsius effigie

The location of the colossus within the vestibule is confirmed by Mart.
Spect. 2.1-3, no matter what interpretation of uestibulum is followed
(above) : hic ubi sidereus propius uidet astra colossus / et crescunt media
pegmata celsa uia, / inuidiosa feri radiabant atria regis. Cf. also Dio
66.15.1 which seems to understand the summa sacra uia as the original
site ; Boethius, Eranos 50 (1952), 133. The precise position of the colossus
within the uestibulum, however, is disputed. The hypothetical recon-
struction of Nero's sacra uia by van Deman placed the co/ossus in the exact
centre of the uestibulum ; van Deman, art. cit., 125 and plate 62. This
speculation was accepted by Boethius, art. cit., 135, and by Ward-Perkins,
Etruscan and Roman Architecture (1970), 214. Nonetheless, Tamm. op.
cit., 103ff, objected to this opinion, arguing that the colossus must have
stood before the facade of (her) atrium since this would remove the dif-
ficulty of an obscured view of the statue, both from the Forum and from
close range which van Deman's theory of a columned courtyard as the
surround of the colossus raised (above, 174). Comparison was made with
Septimius Severus’ septizonium, defined as ‘‘a facade with a colossal statue
of the Emperor himself in the middle" ; Tamm, op. cit., 106 ; cf. Platner,
Ashby, Topographical Dictionary, s.v. 'Septizonium'. It is impossible
however, to distinguish between these views since nothing of the colossus
remains in the archaeological record. For the discovery of the Hadrianic
pedestal to the statue see Platner, Ashby, Topographical Dictionary, s.v.
"Colossus Neronis' and below, 177.
The statue of Nero was the work of a certain Zenodorus ; Plin. NH
34.45. Its height is variously reported: Dio, 66.15.1, gives one hundred
feet ; a corrupt passage in Pliny (4c) has been emended to give 106 '/2’,
119', 119 !/7, etc. The difference between the upper and lower estimates
here quoted may depend on the inclusion of the base of the statue in the
calculation.
Perhaps of more importance is the question of whether the statue had any
symbolic meaning, the answer to which depends on deciding what the
colossus represented in specific terms. Suetonius is apparently correct in
stating that it depicted Nero ; cf. Plin. VH 34.45, destinatum illius principis
simulacro colossum. Pliny also tells of a model of the colossus which he saw
himself and which caused surprise because of its outstanding resemblance to
Nero ; NH 34.46. But how was Nero shown? L'Orange proposed that Nero
was represented as Helios, seeing in this an example of Neronian theocratic
tendencies dependent on Parthian inspiration. Nero in fact becomes 'Sun-
Cosmocrator’; Serta Eitremiana (1942), 87; 93; The Iconography of
Cosmic Kingship (1953), 29f. On this view, the divine nature of Nero is
symbolised to accord with the belief that the Domus Aurea in general was a
sacred imperial residence. After Nero's death the colossus was indeed
dedicated to the Sun, perhaps in 75, by which time some change had been
made to it; Plin. NH 34.45 ; Dio 66.15.1. Boethius believed that the
change consisted of a substitution of a Helios portrait for the Neronian
head ; Eranos 50 (1952) 132f. But L'Orange argued that a Nero-Colossus
could not be converted into a Helios-Colossus unless the original statuary
was of a Helios type ; op. cit., 30 n.1. A simple swopping of heads was too
simple. This point breaks down, however, if it is recalled that a later change
was made when the colossus represented Commodus as Hercules, which
presumably involved alterations to the statuary as well as the head; HA
Comm. 17. Moreover, there is no literary evidence to support L'Orange, and
in fact the evidence showing the colossus as Helios after Nero is not beyond
suspicion. Pliny (/.c.) says only that the statue was consecrated to the Sun,
dicatus Soli uenerationi, not that it depicted Helios, while Martial's
sidereus ... colossus perhaps no more than confirms this dedication (Spect.
2.1). The only fairly certain evidence is the Domitianic Mart. Epig. 1.70.7
which refers to the miri radiata colossi ; and the much later Herod. 1.15.9,
which makes the Sun representation. clear by the time of Commodus.
Despite L'Orange, then, it is doubtful whether Nero was shown radiate as
Helios ; cf. Toynbee, art. cit., 134. L'Orange's appeal to Luc. 1.45ff for
support of his theoryof Neronian apotheosis does not take into account the
views that this passage depends on conventional flattery or even irony ;
Serta Eitrem. (1942), 91 ; A. D. Nock, CR 40 (1926), 17f ; B. Marti, AJP
66 (1945), 374f. It seems then that the view of Boethius should prevail.
relying as it does on the earlier literary sources who say nothing of a Helios
representation (Pliny and Suetonius) : the colossus presented no more than
a portait of Nero.
" [n the age of the Flavians and later, solar symbolism had become part
of the imperial cult" ; Weinstock, DJ, 384. The Apollonism which pervades
Nero's reign must be regarded as a sign of this development. But Toynbee
has pointed out that the impetus given by Nero to the imperial cult derives
from hellenistic not Oriental traditions, and that Nero's concern with
Apollo mainly involves his activities as citharoedus. Again, in tne literary
record there is no statement that the colossus was regarded as a religious
symbol ; Boethius, Eranos 44 (1946), 451. And in spite of Nero's radiate
coins and his celebration in the Greek east as véoz "Hioc the fact remains
that veneration of the princeps at Rome during his lifetime was not possible.
(Cf. in a similar vein the arguments of D. Fishwick, Britannia 3 [1972],
164fD. In 65, after the disclosure of the Pisonian conspiracy, a designate
consul proposed that a temple be erected as quickly as possible to diuus
Nero. This was vetoed, apparently by Nero himself, because it might seem
to portend his death. Tacitus' observation is more revealing: nam deum

honor principi non ante habetur quam agere inter homines desierit ; Ann.
15.74 ; cf. Luc. t.45ff. It cannot be said whether Nero conceived of himself
as a god incarnate, though even that idea has been doubted; M. P.
Charlesworth, JRS 40 (1950), 75. Yet it would be rash to see more in the
colossus than a display of Neronian megalomania. L'Orange's views do not
take account of the harsh realities of the princeps' political situation.
Autocracy may well have been necessary for stable government, but a
demonstration of the emperor's mortality could be made at any moment —
as Nero himself knew after 65 if not before. Thus, any idea of religious
symbolism in the colossus, and consequently in the Domus Aurea as a
whole, should be treated with scepticism, though the unique quality of the
colossus as an architectural ‘tour de force’ cannot be underestimated. After
all, it is this quality which provides the reason for Suetonius’ inclusion of
the colossus in the present passage. See further below, 180.
The later history of the cofossus contains two chief episodes. Under
Hadrian it was moved to a location nearer the Fiavian amphitheatre to
allow for construction of the Temple of Venus and Rome ; HA Hadr. 19,
and on that site the pedestal of the statue was found ; cf. above, 175. The
colossus was transformed by Commodus into a portrait of himself as Her-
cules; HA Comm. 17 ; Dio 77.22.3 ; Herod. 1.15.9. But the Helios re-
presentation seems to have reappeared even later; Piatner, Ashby, Topo-
graphical Dictionary, s.v.
staret
The mood of the verb has raised the question whether the colossus was in
fact set up at all before the time of Vespasian. P. Howell, The Colossus of
Nero in Athenaeum n.s. 46 (1968), 2921T, believes this passage in Suetonius
to show Nero's intention of erecting the colossus but not its realisation.
Certainty is impossible. But it may be of relevance that the co/ossus does
not appear on Neronian coins.
tanta laxitas
The phrase refers to the total extent of the buildings and parklands of the
Domus Aurea; Platner, Ashby, Topographical Dictionary, s.v. ; Boethius,
Eranos 44 (1946), 443. This has most successfully been delineated by van
Essen, who saw the primary concern of the Neronian architects to be the
construction of a self-contained, artificial, topographical unit within the
city ; cf. Ward-Perkins, art. cit., 212. The surface area enclosed was ap-
proximately two hundred acres, perhaps not an excessive villa size, but a
considerable portion of the urban surface area ; van Essen, art. cit., 13. The
boundaries of the estate most probably followed the slopes of hills forming
a natural basin at the centre of which was the lake (below, 178). Where
hillslopes were lacking the Servian wall was utilized. Thus from the
vestibule porticoes, the line ran northeast to include the Oppian and Sette
Sale, south and southwest along the wall to enciose a large part of the
Caelian, and finally northwest to incorporate the Palatine ; see van Essen,
art. cit., fig. 7; Ward-Perkins, art. cit., 212f, and especially fig. 1.
ut porticus triplices miliarias haberet

The text is ambiguous. It means either a triple portico of a mile in length,
or three separate porticoes each a mile long ; Platner, Ashby, Topographical
Dictionary, s.v. porticus miliaria." Such walks were in fashion ; ibid. s.v.
"Domus Aurea.' The walks in the Gardens of Sallust and in the Saepta are
given as parallels by Ward-Perkins, art. cit., 215 ; cf. HA Aurel. 49.2 ; Cic.
Ad Att. 4.16.8. There are no remains of these Neronian porticoes.
stagnum maris. instar

The lake was situated where later the Flavian amphitheatre replaced it ;
Mart. Spect. 2.5-6. It may have been fed by the arcus Neronianus, a new
adjunct to the Aqua Claudia built perhaps after 64, which ran from Spes
Vetus on the Esquiline to the Claudian temple on the Caelian from where
the water was distributed ; E. G. van Deman, The Building of the Roman
Aqueducts (1934), 266 ; Blake, Roman Construction, 53 ; Front. Aq. 1.20.
An alternative theory is that a stream between the Esquiline and Caelian
was damned to fill the lake ; McDonald, op. cit., 31. Cf. Tac. Ann. 15.42.1.
circumsaeptum aedificiis
Probably porticoes, shrines, and paviltons occupying the parklands of the
Golden House, but no remains have been definitely identified ; cf. Ward-
Perkins, art. cit., 215.
rara insuper aruis atque uinetis et pascuis siluisque uaria, cum multitudine
omnis generis pecudum ac ferarum
Some exaggeration in this description might be expected, though the
description is probably true enough. Cf. Tac. Ann. 15.42.t.
31.2 in ceteris partibus cuncta auro lita, distincta gemmis unionumque con-
chis erant
Cf. Tac. Ann. 15.42.1, domum, in qua haud proinde gemmae et aurum
miraculo essent. Mart. Spect. 2.3, radiabant, may be understood to refer to
the glittering effect described here by Suetonius. By implication Pliny, VH
33.54, gives an impressive estimate of the gold facings used, et quota pars
ea fuit aureae domus ambientis urbem, and he speaks also, NH 36.111, of
the discovery of a new stone from Cappadocia, white and translucent with
yellow veins — phengites — with which Nero decorated the aedes For-
tunae, a shrine within the Domus Aurea complex. [n the Esquiline palace
remains marble facings were found for the facade of the rooms facing south,
as also for the octagon, though not for the areas behind. The use of mosaics
was also likely; Boethius, The Golden House of Nero (1960), 115f;
McDonald, op. cit., 34. So despite Tacitus’ solita (i.c.) the literary tradition
was clearly impressed from the earliest times by the luxurious appearance of
the Domus Aurea. Tamm, op. cit., 105f, suggests that Vespasian removed
the gold and gems from the vestibule to do away with the trappings of
royalty. Pliny, NH 35.120 mentions a certain Famulus (or Fabullus), a
painter who worked in the Domus Aurea. He has been associated with the
frescoes found in the Esquiline wing ; Boethius, op. cit., 115.
cenationes laqueatae tabulis eburneis uersatilibus, ut flores, fistulatis, ut

unguenia desuper spargerentur
In what may be a specific allusion to the Domus Aurea Seneca, Epp.
Moral. 90.15, tells of moving ceiling panels in a dining hall and of con-
cealed pipes which emit saffron perfume. A concern for the mechanically
ingenious is part of a Neronian taste with which the interest in hydraulic
organs and the rotunda coincide ; s.41.2 ; below, 180 ; Charlesworth, art.
, 71 ; McDonald, op. cit., 42. Boethius finds nothing unusual in such
gadgetry ; Eranos 44 (1946), 444. But the passages adduced to support this
contention are not convincing ; Petr. Sar. 60 may well be a parody of the
Neronian devices rather than a representation of something in general use,
and HA Heliog. 21.5 belongs to a much later age. No traces of the
cenationes have been found, and for this reason Blake, Roman Construction,
51, is sceptical about the authenticity of Suetonius' text here. But the
passage from Seneca seems to put the matter beyond dispute. The rooms
may have belonged to a second storey of the Esquiline palace, which would
explain their absence from the archaeological record; Boethius, art. cit.,
445 ; contra McDonald, op. cit., 34.
praecipua cenationum rotunda, quae perpetuo diebus ac noctibus uice mundi

circumageretur
The praecipua cenatio is believed to have formed part of the Esquiline
complex, but no archaeological evidence survives of this feature. A com-
parison with Domitian's triclinium in his reception suite in the palace on
the Palatine has been suggested. Boethius, art. cit., 445 ; cf. L'Orange,
Apotheosis in Ancient Portraiture (1947), 31.
Precisely what moved and how it did so is a mystery. The ambiguity of
Suetonius' Latin allows two possibilities. Perhaps the most natural meaning
is that the whole room rotated, but the phrase uice mundi might suggest
that only a dome in the cenatio was set in motion, the rest of the room stay-
ing still. Cf. Boethius, The Golden House of Nero (1960), 117 ; Ward-
Perkins, art. cit., 211. An explanation of the mechanics involved has been
seen in a comparison with the palace of the seventh-century king of Persia,
Chosroes II, which seems to have had a dome rotated by horse power from
a basement; see L'Orange, Serta Eitremiana (1942); cf. Lehmann, art.
cit., 22. But some sort of hydraulic system could be another possibility. The
structure was most probably made of wood; Lehmann, art cit, 22;
Boethius, op. cit., 117. Following L'Orange's belief that the architectural
roots of the rotunda lie in Persia, Boethius pointed out the rarity of this
type of construction in the Roman tradition, but suggested that the
mechanical part may have been a Roman addition ; Eranos 44 (1946), 448.
At the same time antecedents for the shape of the structure have been found
in a Greek background of circular building; Lehmann, art. cit., 26.
Lehmann has traced the architectural history of domes which depict
celestial symbols in an attempt to find pagan sources behind the tradition of
the Christian cosmocrator. [n so doing, he sees the present rotunda as a
sort of planetarium; cf. also L'Orange, art. cit., 87. For L'Orange the
religious ideas associated with Chosroes' throne room (a statue of the king
and artificial weather effects allowed the king to appear as lord of the
universe) are implicit in the Neronian building too and become another sign
of the apotheosis of Nero. A Persian tradition, that is, is made to lie behind
the Domus Aurea. Although the text of Suetonius is brief, it does not allow
in itself any idea of religious symbolism to be extrapolated (cf. above,
175ff). The most that can be admitted is that an Oriental architectural in-
fluence may have transmitted indirectly some vague religious association to
Nero's rotunda, but the influence will have been all but lost in Rome and
was not the primary force behind the construction of the room. Cf.
Boethius, art. cit., 459.
AN HISTORICAL COMMENTARY 18I
balineae
These baths are otherwise unattested. But there is no particular reason to
infer from the text that they were part of the main palace, as Boethius, art.
cit., 444. A preferable alternative, also the idea of Boethius, is that they
were situated outside the main palace on the analogy of Hadrian's villa at
Tivoli; The Golden House of Nero (1960), 117.
absolutam
Cf. Tac. Ann. 15.42.1, extruxitque domum. Yet this is unlikely: ar-
chaeology shows signs of incomplete building ; for instance, unfinished
paintings and pavements on the Esquiline; see Platner, Ashby, 7opo-
graphical Dictionary s.v. ‘Domus Aurea’ ; McDonald op. cit.. 32. Moreover,
according to Suet. Otho 7.1, a sum of HS5O0m. was set aside by Otho
specifically for the completion of the palace.
hactenus comprobauit, ut se diceret quasi hominem tandem habitare coepisse

Stress has rightly been laid on the phrase quasi hominem in this anecdote
to demonstrate the absence of any divine significance in the Domus Aurea ;
Boethius, Eranos 44 (1946), 453, Toynbee, art. cit., 133; cf. above.
175ff ; 180.
31.3 Praeterea incohabat piscinam a Miseno ad Auernum lacum contectam

porticibusque conclusam
This project is not mentioned elsewhere but the grandiose intention is in
keeping with the Avernus canal scheme (below) and the construction of the
dam and lake at the imperial villa at Sublaquea, for which see Blake, Roman
Construction, 41f; 85f.
calidarum aquarum
For the hot springs of Campania see above, 126 with references.
fossam ab Auerno Ostiam usque, ut nauibus nec tamen mari iretur, longitu-
dinis per centum sexaginta milia, latitudinis, qua contrariae quinqueremes
commearent
Cf. Tac. Ann. 15.42.2-4, which follows Tacitus' brief notice of the
Domus Aurea, so that the present scheme should probably belong to 64.
Possibly, however, Tacitus includes the item to illustrate the theme of Nero
incredibilium cupitor, since it is hardly in keeping with the rebuilding of
Rome itself after the great fire. Tacitus' main point is the folly of the en-
terprise, together with the wastefulness caused by the instigators of the

project, Severus and Celer (cf. above, 172). The attitudes of Tacitus and
Suetonius, that is, are essentially the same.
The project, however, was not as misguided as these authors suggest.
Suetonius’ clause, ut nauibus nec tamen mari iretur, shows that he may have
had some idea of a serious purpose behind the digging of the canal, which
was in fact to obviate the dangers to shipping along the west coast of [taly
(for which see Tac. Ann. 15.18.3 ; 46.3) and to facilitate the transportation
of grain from Puteoli to Rome through the use of an inland waterway;
Henderson, 247 ; Meiggs, Ostia, 57f. The lake itself lay off the Bay of
Baiae between Cumae and Puteoli. The canal may have been intended to
link up with the Neronian canal from Ostia to Rome (for which see above,
100f), thereby providing complete access to Rome from Puteoli by water. If
so, another diversity of attitude on Suetonius' part becomes apparent, for
the entry on the Ostia-Rome canal appears in the commendable section of
the biography (s.16.1). The canal here, however, was to cover a prodigious
distance, perhaps an infeasible distance from Suetonius' point of view in
time, and it was also left incomplete. Hence, a wasteful and non-
commendable item. According to Tacitus (/.c.) the Pomptine marshes were
to provide a source of water for the canal. The draining of malaria! swamps
would thus have been a beneficial side-effect of the scheme ; cf. Stat. Silu.
4.3.7-8. Supplies of water were in fact in abundance ; lakes and streams
such as the Liris and Volturnus could have been used, and the high ground
along the path of the canal, notably at Caieta and Terracina, would not
have proven difficult to penetrate ; a system of locks could have been one
possibility ; Henderson, 247 ; Meiggs, Ostia, 58 ; cf. Sherwin- White, Pliny,
647f. Pliny, NH 14.61, believed that the work on the canal had been
responsible for a decline in the production of Caecuban wine, which may
imply that considerable progress on the scheme had been made; Meiggs,
Ostia, 58. A few traces of the project still exist, notably at Torre Paola ; cf.
Blake, Roman Construction 83f. Ultimately, however, the scheme was aban-
doned and Suetonius may thus be justified in lamenting the loss of the
original capital outlay involved.
P. Grenade, REA 50 (1948), 2721f, believes an allusion to the Avernus
canal is detectable at Petr. Sar. 120, 90ff.
31.4 super fiduciam imperii

The statement fails to distinguish between the finances of the state and
Nero's own cash resources ; cf. above, l65f[f.
eiiam spe quadam repentina immensarum et reconditarum opum impulsus est

ex indicio equitis R. pro comperto pollicentis thesauros antiquissimae gazae
The purpose of this story of Dido's treasure is to serve as a connection
between the demonstration of /uxuria and that of auaritia which begins at
s.32.2 ; above, 153ff. The contrived nature of this anecdote is shown by the
lack of chronological accuracy in ss.31-32. Strictly speaking the items
classified in ss.32.2-4 should fall later in time than the Dido episode be-
cause they depend on the generalisation in s.32.1 which itself is the out-
come of the story of the treasure. The anecdote refers to events in 65 ; cf.
Tac. Ann. 16.1.1 ; but at least one of the items in ss.32.2ff belongs earlier
(the introduction of maiestas trials, in 62 ; see AJP 94 [1973], 172fD. It
might be expected similarly that all the information in ss.30-31.3 preceded
this episode in time ; again, however, this is not so. The importance of the
passage is mainly literary, therefore, but this does not mean that its factual
basis is suspect. The counterpart at Tac. Ann. 16.1-3 illustrates this suf-
ficiently. But Tacitus’ presentation of the episode also has an ulterior pur-
pose, namely, to show the workings of fortuna and the gullibility of Nero.
Both authors might thus be suspected of exaggerating the importance of the
story. In itself, however, there is no reason why a search for treasure trove
should not be viewed realistically without overtones. Doubtless the in-
consequential outcome of the venture was responsible for the harsh treat-
ment of Nero which survives in the literary tradition.
The name of the Roman knight was Caesellius Bassus ; Tac. Ann. 16.1.1.
He was a Carthaginian who was afflicted with some sort of mental
deficiency. [Inspired by a dream he sailed to Rome, purchased an audience
with Nero, and told of a cave on his estates which contained treasure.
If the story is taken seriously Bassus must have hoped for a share in the
find when it was made, otherwise there would have been little reason for
him to divulge his information. This perhaps indicates that the fiscus at this
time did not have an overriding claim to all treasure discoveries, though
knowledge of the legal position is highly imperfect. From Cal. Sic. Eclog.
4.117ff, it appears that some modification was made in the law under Nero,
for that text speaks of the farmer no longer having to fear finding treasure
as he digs or ploughs. It has been inferred from this that Nero altered a
practice whereby the fiscus had previously made total claim to finds. Thus
G. F. Hill, Treasure Trove — The Law and Practice of Antiquity in Proc.
Brit. Acad. 19 (1933), 219ff ; cf. W. W. Buckland, A Textbook of Roman
Law (1921), 219f; the main text on the matter is Dig. 41.1.30.
quos Dido regina fugiens Tyro secum extulisset

Tac. Ann. 16.1.3 states that Bassus conjectured that Dido hid her
treasure when Carthage was founded in order to prevent luxury among the
new Punic race or else to allow local enemies no casus belli. Cf. Virg. Aen.
1.357f.
uastissimis specubus
Cf. Tac. Ann. 16.1.1, specum altitudine immensa.
paruula molientium opera

According to Tac. Ann. 16.2.1-2, Nero did not attempt to verify Bassus"
report but immediately sent ships to collect the paratam praedam.
32.1 uerum ut spes fefellit

Cf. Tac. Ann. 16.3.2 : no treasure was found, and in consequence Bassus
committed suicide or, in a variant version, was imprisoned, then released
and suffered loss of his property. See further below, 186.
destitutus atque ita iam exhaustus et egens

Cf. Tac. Ann. 16.3.1 : anticipation of the discovery of the treasure led to
increased public spending in Rome and was a cause of paupertas publica.
ut stipendia quoque militum et commoda ueteranorum protrahi ac differri

necesse esset
The aerarium militare was supposed to provide the cash bonuses (com-
moda) to soldiers who had completed terms of service, 5,000 denarii to
praetorians and 3,000 to legionaries; Dio 55.23.2. This text implies,
however, that the indirect taxes which fed the military treasury were in-
sufficient for requirements. Hence imperial intervention would be necessary.
Augustus had promised to make an annual contribution to the treasury (Dio
$5.25.3) which may mean that from its inception the treasury was on weak
foundations. Tiberius, at least, had difficulties with military payments ; Tac.
Ann. 4.4.4 ; Suet. Tib. 48.2. A subvention to the treasury by Nero in 65
may have been awkward because of commitments to the Domus Aurea and
the noua urbs. But Tacitus in his version of the Caesellius Bassus affair has
nothing of this material here and it is possible that the text should not be
dated to 65. Earlier in the reign some veterans had been sent to Neronian
colonies, which should mean that they received grants of land instead of
cash bonuses ; Tac. Amn. 14.27 (60). Conceivably there is a connection be-
tween this item in Tacitus and the present text. For military pay see referen-
ces above, 76f.
calumniis rapinisque intendit animum

The tradition of Neronian greed and rapacity is strong in the ancient
sources ; see, for example, Dio 61.5.2-3 ; 63.11 ; 17.1. And the tradition
has been followed in modern times. Sample quotations are instructive. Mo-
migliano, 724, speaks of "the forced contributions that were imposed upon
Italians and provincials for the rebuilding of Rome’’ and continues that in
the years after the great fire, Nero “went out of his way ruthlessly ... with
partial or total confiscation of private estates, whether he profited by
political condemnations, or simply put people out of the way". Likewise,
Tenney Frank, ESAR V 43, wrote that Nero “resorted ... partly because of
his native cruelty, to extensive confiscations". The evidence for these
claims, however, is often confusing and equivocal, and the exact extent of
properties and monies acquired by Nero from illegitimate or legitimate
sources can be understood only in part.
The most celebrated confiscation statement is that of Pliny, VH 18.35,
according to which Nero put to death six landowners who between them
owned half of Africa. Large estates were the staple of economic life in
Africa but there were many more estates in the full province than implied
by Pliny ; Rostovtzeff, SEHRE?, 102; ESAR IV, 101f (Haywood). It is
believed that some of the estates referred to by Pliny lay in the upper valley
of the Bagradas which has produced a series of inscriptions relating to im-
perial holdings ; ESAR IV, 85ff; cf. J. J. van Nostrand, The Imperial
Domains of Africa Proconsularis (1925). As emperor, Nero was in
possession of saltus through inheritance. At least one estate is known of,
the Lamianus, which had probably fallen to Tiberius on the death of L.
Aemilius Lamia, cos. A. D. 3 ; J. Carcopino, L'Inscription d'Ain-el-Djemía
in MEFR 26 (1906), 434. Yet to date only two possible identifications of
the six alleged victims have been made. The saítus Blandianus had perhaps
been owned by C. Rubellius Blandus who will have passed it on to his son,
the Rubellius Plautus put to death by Nero in 62 ; Tac. Ann. 14.57.6. The
property then apparently became imperial. The sa/tus Domitianus was first
owned most probably by Nero's grandfather, the consul of 16 B.C. (for
whom see above, 40ff) and then by Nero's aunt Domitia Lepida ; Car-
copino, art. cit., 435f; ESAR ic. Together with others these estates may
have been united to form the sa/tus Neronianus ; cf. van Nostrand, op. cit.,
39. But if these two instances have been correctly associated with Pliny's
remark then the value of that statement is dubious. Serious political reasons
lay behind the death of Rubellius Plautus which was delayed as long as
possible ; cf. D. McAlindon, AJP 77 (1956), 124f. And Lepida was the vic-
tim of Agrippina before Nero's accession ; see above, 57f. Rapacity hardly
enters the picture.
Domitia Lepida and Rubellius Plautus died respectively in 53 and 64.
The executions of which Pliny speaks did not occur simultaneously then.
So, as a speculation, a third member of the group of six could be named as
Caesellius Bassus, the Carthaginian landowner who duped Nero with his
story of Dido's treasure ; see above, 183f. Tac. Ann. 16.3 shows that there
were divergent accounts of this affair, but the details of the suicide and con-
fiscation of Bassus' property may have led to his inclusion on Pliny's list.
Although the full story is not clear it does not seem that murder and
deprivation were the main ingredients of the episode.
When the consideration is added that there is little evidence for
deliberately manipulated treason trials under Nero (see AJP 94 [1973],
172ff), the conclusion seems plausible that the remaining African land-
owners were not put to death for reasons of greed on Nero's part.
Legitimate inheritance or acquisition through pubdblicatio seem safer bets.
Pliny's attitude to Nero is consistently hostile, and his confiscation item
should be treated with due scepticism.
Other literary evidence can be examined to consider cases where rapacity
is alleged as a cause of punishment of named individuals.
Nero's other aunt, Domitia, is said by Suetonius to have been killed and
to have forfeited her property to Nero through his suppression of her will ;
$.34.5. The absence of an account in Tacitus does not allow the full details
of the item to emerge, but Suetonius’ text has been doubted; cf. R. S.
Rogers, The Roman Emperors as Heirs and Legatees in TAPA 78 (1947),
149. Rogers pointed out that Nero was Domitia's only surviving relative
and concluded that Nero inherited the property in normal circumstances,
the story of the murder being a fiction. Even if this is not true, the date of
Domitia's death, known from Dio 61.17.1 as 59 is significant, for it does
not coincide with the view illustrated above that Nero's reign became a
rapacious tyranny after 64.
Nero was alleged to have poisoned Claudius' freedman Pallas quod im-
mensam pecuniam longa senecta detineret ; Tac. Ann. 14.65.1 ; cf. Dio
62.14.3. Pallas’ huge fortune is well attested, and besides gardens in Rome
he also possessed estates in Egypt ; Tac. Ann. 12.53.5 ; Dio 62.14.3 ; Plin.
NH 33.134 ; cf. Rostovtzeff, SEHRE?, 671; PIR? A 858 (Stein) for
papyrological material. But it has been established that in all probability

Pallas’ death was due to natural causes, and that although according to law
Nero inherited some of his possessions, most went to his descendants ; S. I
Oost, The Career of M. Antonius Pallas in AJP 79 (1958), 113ff. See be-
low, 218f.
Annaeus Mela, the brother of Seneca, abstained from a senatorial career
partly in order to make money in the equestrian administration ; Tac. Ann.
16.17.3. In addition, he also inherited the wealth of his son Lucan on the
latter's death ; Tac. /.c. ; cf. Furneaux ad /oc. ; Hier. Chron. 2084k. In 66
Mela was accused of complicity in the Pisonian affair and was convicted,
Nero, so Tacitus has it, opibus eius inhians ; Ann. 16.17.5. The criminal
details of this case are hopelessly lost, but allowing for Lucan's involvement
in the conspiracy and observing Mela's association with another of the con-
spirators, Epicharis (Polyaen. Strateg. 8.62), it is not impossible that
justice was pursued normally and rightfully. What happened to Mela's
money is not known. His codicillary bribe to Tigellinus quo cetera
manerent, Tac. Ann. 16.17.6, implies that he had heirs. Several possibilities
exist : Seneca's wife, Pompeia Paulina, who survived her husband for a few
years, Tac. Ann. 15.64.2 ; Argentaria Polla, the wife of Lucan, PIR? A
' |039 ; [unius Gallio, still alive in 65, Tac. Ann. 15.73, though he appears
to have died shortly thereafter, Dio 62.25.3 ; Hier. Chron. 2080v ; Gallio's
daughter Novatilla, though nothing more than her existence is known, Sen.
Ad Helu. 18.7. The bribe may or may not have been successful. But legally
Mela's estate probably became subject to publicatio. At any rate, Tacitus is
clearly unreliable evidence here, and there is no sign of unfair proceedings.
Cf. PIR? A 613.
Egnatia Maximilla accompanied her husband P. Glitius Gallus into exile
in 65; see below, 261. Afterwards her wealth was confiscated: magnis
primum et integris opibus, post ademptis ; Tac. Ann. 15.71.7. But the con-
fiscation may have been made while Nero was in Greece because of the in-
fluence exercised by Gallus and his wife over the local population of the
island of Andros ; RE Supp. Ill s.v. ‘Glitius’ no. 2 (Groag) ; Furneaux ad
Tac. Le.
[n 65 the jurist C. Cassius was exiled to Sardina and according to Tac.
Ann. 16.7 his wealth was a factor herein. Again, however, Tacitus’ narrative
is meagre in detail and political reasons for the exile may be invoked ; see
further, 223, 261.
The following year a charge was brought by Antistius Sosianus (on
whom see AJP 94 [1973], 172fD against P. Anteius Rufus on wholly
fabricated evidence. Tacitus has it, Ann. 16.14.3, that Antistius knew that
Anteius’ wealth would excite Nero's greed. No details of formal criminal

proceedings are given by Tacitus, but it is probable that some hearing did
occur ; cf. R. S. Rogers, TAPA 83 (1952), 309. However, wealth per se
could not possibly be regarded as a criminal charge and Tacitus' piece has
to be largely skated around to avoid its tendentiousness. Anteius committed
suicide, Tac. Ann. 16.14.6, hardly a sign of innocence perhaps. His
association with Agrippina, even as late as 66, has some substance as the
basis of an accusation, given that this alliance had probably kept him from
taking up a governorship of Syria in 55 ; Tac. Ann. 13.22.2 ; 16.14.3 ; cf.
15.50 for a similar episode.
[n the same year the wealthy Bithynian Asclepiodotus was exiled also ;
below, 261. He was restored by Galba, Dio 62.26.2, but whether he
recovered his fortune, of which Tacitus, Ann. 16.33.1, says he had been
deprived, cannot be judged.
From this review of cases where Tacitus alleges rapacity on Nero's part
as a reason for the bringing of accusations it is clear that confiscation of
wealth by the emperor for its own sake is difficult, if not impossible, to
prove. [n a majority of instances a political framework can be deduced, at
least in part, into which the accusations and prosecutions fit. It is more than
likely that Tacitus has tacked on to his accounts of various items motives of
rapacity and exaggerated their importance. The same considerations apply
to Dio's implication, 62.26.1, that Thrasea Paetus and Barea Soranus were
put to death because they were rich ; see below, 224f. Moreover, the cases
here noticed do not fall within one period. Admittedly most occur in the
record for 65/6, but it was at this time, after the uncovering of Piso's plot,
that there were more obvious cases to be made against individuals than
hitherto.
The evidence of Dio remains. He refers frequently to Nero's habit of
killing off people to acquire their cash ; 61.5.5-6 ; 63.11.1-2; 17.1-2 ; cf.
Tac. Ann. 16.14.3 ; and alleges the seizure of estates of people sent into
exile; Dio 63.11.3. These texts, however, are nebulous and inflated. For
the most part Dio maintains a disturbing silence on the names of in-
dividuals supposedly referred to. It might have been expected in this respect
that Dio would have provided information lost because of the disappearance
of the end of the Annals. But this is not so. Corbulo and the brothers
Scribonianus are claimed as victims of Nero, Dio 63.17, but finance does
not enter at all here ; see further, 220f. A. Larcius Lydus is said to have
been divested by Tigellinus of HSlm. as a guarantee of his continued
existence (above, 134), but the literal truth of this figure is open to doubt ;
cf. Oost, art. cit., 128 n.37, on the reliability of Dio's estimate of Pallas’
cash fortune.
Pliny, NH 37.19, teils of Nero confiscating a large amount of myrrhine
ware from the children of an ignotus and storing it in his private theatre
across the Tiber. The man may have been put to death on a criminal
charge ; there is no way of telling.
It cannot be denied that the imperial finances may have been improved
by the accruement of bona damnatorum from legitimate sentences, nor that
in the last years of the reign a serious need for ready cash existed. The legal
basis of the princeps' right to control bona damnatorum is not yet fully un-
derstood but it is clear enough by Nero's time that the fact of the matter,
that the emperor did add bona to the fiscus and not the aerarium, was well
established ; see Millar, JRS 53 (1963), 36f; Brunt, JRS 56 (1966), 81f.
Publicatio bonorum was the sequel of all capital sentences ; Dig. 48.20.1.
Hence the detection. of the conspiracy of Piso alone could have been
profitable, though the details of what was taken by the fiscus are not
available ; cf. Dio 63.11.2-3. Property was taken from some of those sent
into exile ; Tacitus, Hist. 1.90, records that Otho reliquias Neronianarum
sectionum nondum in fiscum conuersas reuocatis ab exilio concessit. This
text demonstrates well what had happened to the bona: auction (despite
Millar, /oc. cit.), the proceeds going to the emperor. There may have been a
need for hard cash, then, but even though considerable sums may have been
involved there is little to show that justice was not pursued normally and
satisfactorily in criminal cases.
There is more telling evidence of rapacity in the provinces. The East was
scoured by Nero's agents to provide works of art for the Domus Transitoria
and the Domus Aurea ; above, 172. Statues, for instance, were collected
from Delphi, Olympia, Athens, Pergamum, and Thespiae ; Pausan. 6.25.9 ;
26.3 ; 9.27.3 ; 10.7.1 ; Dio Chrysos. Orat. 31.148 ; Plin. NH 38.84 ; Tac.
Ann. 15.45.2-3 ; cf. Heinz, Das Bild, 45f. Polyclitus and Calvia Crispinilla
were agents of exactions in 67 in Greece ; Dio 63.12.3 ; two other names of
agents, Vatinius and Aegialus, are provided by Tac. Hist. 1.37. And
Acratus was busy collecting art in Asia before the great fire; Tac. Ann.
16.23 ; Magie, RRAM, 1422 n.76 ; PIR? B 55 (Groag). Furthermore, Vin-
dex' speech to the Gauls makes reference to forced levies of money ; Dio
63.22.2 ; and Plutarch tells of Neronian procurators harrying the provin-
ces; Galb. 4.1.
At least some of this, however, should be attributable not to a personal
defect in Nero's character as the sources suggest, but to the financial
malaise which seems to have increased throughout the reign. The following
items are indicative. Complaints about the exactions of the publicani are
heard for 58 ; Boudicca in 61 spoke of the burden of taxation in Britain
where confiscation of land occurred in the same year ; the following year
Nero reproached the extravagance of former governors and instituted a
commission on the uectigalia (above, 165). Tac. Ann. 13.50.1 ; 14.31.1 ;
15.18.4 ; Dio 62.3.2-4 ; 62.2.1. In Rome itself the great fire was a major
calamity, and the collection of provincial revenues may have been stepped
up as a result.
Nonetheless, all was not savagery. Lugdunum provided a voluntary con-
tribution to the cost of rebuilding Rome, but the only reason that this fact is
known is because the sum was later refunded when Lugdunum was itself af-
flicted by a similar catastrophe ; Tac. Amn. 16.13.4 ; cf. Dio 62.18.5. There
may have been many more examples of this nature which the ancient
authors have neglected to mention, both from municipal and private sour-
ces. Seneca, for instance, probably made a contribution ; Tac. Ann. 15.74 ;
Dio 62.25.3. Cf. H. E. Wedeck, Laromus 14 (1955), 540ff. And Nero him-
self was generous to the city after the fire; cf. below, 227. At the same
time, the effects of rhetoric cannot be minimised in passages such as Plut.
Galb. 4.1 and Dio 63.22.2. There may well have been encouragement of
private individuals to assist in defraying costs for the rebuilding of Rome,
so that, without total exoneration of Nero, a picture emerges of a weak
financial position increasingly aggravated as the reign progressed which was
explained by the sources purely in terms of the emperor's personality. Thus.
the original proposition of a period of tyrannical rapacity provoked and
continued by Nero requires some modification.
32.2 Ante omnia instituit

The demonstration of auaritia ; above, 153ff. Little of the material which
appears in ss.32.2-4 is verifiable which may be an indication that the
measures mostly (but not totally) belong to the last years of the reign.
ut e libertorum defunctorum bonis pro semisse dextans ei cogeretur, qui sine

probabili causa eo nomine essent, quo fuissent ullae familiae quas ipse con-
tingeret
To make any good sense the text requires emendation : either Lipsius"
dexians cogeretur, si qui... essent ; or dextans sibi (sc. Neroni) cogeretur;
or dextans ab eis... qui.
Patrons were entitled by law to claim half the estate of a deceased libertus
if the will made no provision for the patron unless the heirs were naturales
liberi, Gaius Instit. 3.39-42 ; cf. Ulp. 29.1; Dig. 38.2.25, 35 ; W. W.

Buckland, A Text-Book of Roman Law! (1966), 379 ; A. M. Duff, Freed-
men in the Early Roman Empire (1928), 43. The enactment here meant that
Nero permitted himself a larger claim (ten-twelfths) of estates in cases
where freedmen had assumed an imperial nomen, lulius, Claudius, or
Domitius, on unjustifiable grounds. The law therefore must not have been
intended to affect imperial freedmen who, on emancipation, had reasonable
grounds to adopt an imperial name. [t is unciear whether the normal
provision about naturales liberi applied here. The emperor assumed the
position of putative patronus in the case of miscreants and preempted the
claim of the actual patronus. Since the later lawyers do not include this
measure in the codes it was probably of only brief duration. It should not
automatically be considered the result of Neronian rapacity if the emperor
adopted that attitude of equity demonstrated in 56 after the senatorial
debate de fraudibus libertorum. The reply to the senate is instructive : scrip-
sitque Caesar senatui, priuatim expenderent causam libertorum, quoties a
patronis arguerentur ; in commune nihil derogarent ; Tac. Ann. 13.27.6.
Presumably the law was a response to what was considered presumptuous
behaviour by new liberti.
ut ingratorum in principem testamenta ad fiscum pertinerent

According to Tac. Ann. 16.19.5 adulation of Nero in wills was the norm
in the late years of the reign. Certainly a convention had arisen which en-
couraged individuals to name the princeps among their heirs ; cf. Petr. Sar.
76.2. It was intended to secure the provisions of wills by acknowledging the
emperor who might otherwise seize the full bequest. The guarantee was not
always effective ; cf. Tac. Ann. 14.31 ; 16.11. Dio, 63.11.2, states that the
children and freedmen of Nero's victims were compelled to leave half of
their property to the emperor at death, that the victims were permitted to
make wills, but that these were disregarded if nothing was left to Nero, who
always accepted what was bequeathed him. This passage in Dio seems fairly
confused, however, and the usual objection can be made against it, no
precise details. Its value is thus hardly great, though the date of the passage,
67, is worth noting.
A set of principles which governed emperors' conduct towards bequests
was worked out by R. S. Rogers, TAPA 78 (1947), 140ff. In general Rogers
found that legacies from people with surviving children, or from anonymous
donors, or from individuals intending to harm a third party were not ac-
cepted. These principles were not of course legally binding and no emperor
was obliged to adhere to them. But the lack of definite instances to show
Nero offending against this code is important especially when there are
cases of men who did not indulge in the apparently all-pervasive flattery of
the emperor in wills. L. Antistius Vetus and Petronius are known to have
made gestures of defiance in this respect, but there is no sign that their wills
were tampered with in consequence ; Tac. Ann. 16.11.2-3; 19.5. In ad-
dition a comparison is possible with people who, in anticipation of criminal
conviction, committed suicide voluntarily to protect their wills. There were
very few such cases, a sign, therefore, that imperial interference was not
generally suspected. See Tac. Ann. 13.30.2 ; 43.6 ; cf. 6.29.2 ; Rogers, art.
cit., 149. These considerations do not mean that Suetonius' statement here
is inaccurate, only that there is little evidence to show such a measure
operating on a wide scale.
fiscum
This term obviously refers to monies under the direct control of the prin-
ceps, but its appearance in the context of inheritance is rare ; cf. Millar, JRS
53 (1963), 34 ; below, 266.
ac ne impune esset studiosis iuris, qui scripsissent uel dictassent ea

The text suggests that jurists and lawyers who advised clients on the
drawing up of wills (testamentarii) may actually have written the documents
themselves. But they might also be assisted by legal secretaries, tabeiliones,
who took dictation. In either case as the technical scriptores testamenti the
lawyers were subject to legislation which disallowed their right to inherit
under wills they had drawn up themselves ; RE VIII s.v. Tabellio'. The law
here demands a legacy to the princeps from every private individual, of
which lawyers must make their clients aware under forfeiture of the whole
estate ; cf. Suet. Calig. 38.2 and in general above, 191f.
ul lege maiestatis facta dictaque omnia, quibus modo delator non deesse,
tenerentur
For the reintroduction of treason trials in 62 see AJP 94 (1973), 1721f.
A financial motive on Nero's part is unlikely. But see A. H. M. Jones, /n-
flation under the Roman Empire in Economic History Review 5 (1953), 296.
32.3 reuocauit et praemia coronarum, quae umquam sibi ciuitates in cer-

taminibus detulissent
Although individual cities might give cash rewards to successful local
competitors there is no evidence of cash prizes being awarded actually with

the victory crowns at the Greek festivals. Hence, Bentley's emendation of
quae io quas is necessary.
The text appears to mean that Nero had given sums of money to cities
where he had successfully competed in the games, obviously therefore
during the Hellenic tour (for which see above, 137ff). Besides money to the
judges of the games (above, 147) Nero made a donation of HS400,000 in
gratitude for a favourable response from the Pythia; Dio 63.14.2. There
seems to be no way of making an absolute judgement on just how much
money was given away by Nero, but if an attempt was made to recover it
then this must have been after the return from Greece at the end of 67 (cf.
Latomus 37 (1978). Possibly then, this measure was connected with the
emergency measures enacted by Nero in the crisis of Vindex' rebellion ; cf.
5.44.
et cum interdixisset usum amethystini ac Tyrii coloris summisissetque qui

nundinarum die pauculas uncias uenderet, praeclusit cunctos negotiatores
Purple dye was a luxury item, and Tyrian the best quality. Under
Augustus double-dyed cloth could fetch a thousand denarii a pound ; Plin.
NH 9.137 ; Martial gives the figures of HS10,000 for a purple cloak and
HSIm. for the praetor's purple dress ; Epig. 4.61.4 ; 8.10 ; 10.41.5. Caesar
tried to curb the use of purple by a sumptuary law, which might provide a
clue to Nero's action here; cf. above, 102. Certainly the concern is with
some sort of police action (summissiset), comparable to that of Tac. Ann.
15.44.3 (subdidit reos). The measure has been seen as an effort to preserve
purple commodities for the court ; M. Reinold, Purple as a Status-Symbol
in Antiquity, Collection Latomus, 116 (1970), 50. But this view does not
explain why Suetonius considered the ban remunerative for Nero. Perhaps
Nero was interested in the creation of an imperial monopoly over the sale of
the dye ; note below suis procuratoribus. Cf. in general DS s.v. ‘purpura’ ;
Plin. NH 9.125ff.
praeclusit cunctos negotiatores

Cf. Oros. 7.7.8.
procuratoribus suis
Perhaps imperial freedmen in charge of the monopoly on purple dye ; see
above.
32.4 ultimo templis compluribus dona detraxit

Cf. Tac. Ann. 15.45.2 for the activities of Acratus and Secundus Carrinas
in the East cf. above, 189.
simulacraque ex auro uel argento fabricata conflauit

Perhaps for decorations for the Domus Aurea ; cf. above, 171ff.
Sections 33-38 ;
This portion of the biography illustrates Nero's crudelitas ; above. 153ff.

Its thematic unity gives rise to a tendentious presentation of material at
times. Indicative statements are at s.35.2, eandem mox saepe frustra
strangulare meditatus, which is vague and unconfirmed, and s.35.5, Burro
praefecto remedium ad fauces pollicitus toxicum misit, which is a mis-
representation ; see below, 210; 217f. The material is not arranged
haphasardly, but instead a careful progression from victims cnnected with
Nero by family relationships through victims connected by other personal
ties to all manner of people (and indeed beyond) threatened by the em-
peror's cruelty is observable. It may thus not be quite accurate to contend
that Suetonius’ aim is just “to report succinctly what the authorities alleged,
and to leave it to the reader to draw his own conclusions" (?).
This manner of presentation excludes the possibility of a detailed account
of each episode within the rubric. Nero is almost always credited with
responsibility for deaths (!9), and this concern with the personal element
means that no attention is given by Suetonius to the wider ramifications of
a particular set of circumstances. The fact that, for example, Atticus
Vestinus' death (s.35.1) may have been the result of political factors does
not interest Suetonius who can find other, subjective causes. This does not
mean, however, that there is a total absence of political awareness on
Suetonius” part (!), but his whole conception of motivation for and
causation of deaths is consistently weak. When a series of trivial reasons is
provided as the basis of certain deaths (e.g., s.37.1) it is likely that this is
done deliberately to support the portrayal of cruelty by harping on the
unrealistic quality of Nero's behaviour.
Instructive from the viewpoint of Suetonian methodology can be the
(9) TowNenp, Latin Biography (1967), 92. Cf. above, 14ff.

(10) The case of Claudius is an exception, but see below. 195f.
(11) See below, 197f.
comparison of parallel accounts of deaths found in other sources, and

especially in Tacitus. It will be seen that at times Suetonius adapts basic
material for his own purposes and that he sometimes appears to draw on
sources other than those of Tacitus. It is in this portion that special use may
have been made of exitus writings (!!). Comparison with Tacitus suggests
further selectivity by Suetonius. The deaths of Domitia, Caecina Tuscus, the
child Rufrius Crispinus, and Aulus Plautius do not appear in Tacitus at
all (9).
33.1 Parricidia et caedes a Claudio exorsus est

For Claudius’ death see Tac. Anm. 12.66-7 ; Dio 60.34.2-3 ; cf. Sen.
Apoc. 1; Plin. NH 2.92; 22.92; 11.189 ; Mart. 1.20 ; Jos. BJ 20.148 ;
151 ; Juv. 5.148; 6.620; Momigliano, 696 ; Hohl, 360 ; Warmington,
45f.
Claudius died on 13th October, 54, though the time of death is variously
reported. Suet. Claud. 44.3 gives prope lucem ; cf. Dio 60.34. 2. Sen. Apoc.
2.2 has inter sextam et septimam (sc. horam). The conflict may be due to
an ‘official version’ of Claudius’ death propagated by the Apocolocyniosis ;
cf. above, 63. It is worth pointing out that this work does not describe the
murder of Claudius, perhaps because it was dangerous for Seneca to be
allusive this way ; V. M. Scramuzza, The Emperor Claudius (1942), 93. But
another explanation is also possible : there was perhaps no murder. Malaria
has been suggested as one possible means of death by natural causes ; see
R. A. Pack, CW 36 (1954/3), 150f. Cf. also G. Bagnani, Phoenix |
(1946/47), 15ff.
cuius necis etsi non auctor, at conscius fuit

Nero's complicity in Claudius' murder is not attested elsewhere and the
literary tradition is virtually unanimous in ascribing to Agrippina respon-
sibility for instigating the murder; Tac. Ann. 12.66.2 ; Dio 60.34.2 ; Jos.
BJ 20.148 ; 151 ; Juv. 6.620. Suetonius' proof of Nero's involvement, the
following reference to the Greek proverb (below, 196) is in itself no proof at
all. It may mean no more than that Nero became aware of the event after-
wards. It might be noted in passing that Subrius Flavus' indictment against
Nero (Tac. Ann. 15.67.2) does not include the charge of parricide.
(12) Above, 18.

(13) Even though Tacitus also probably drew on exitus literature; cf. Syme, Tacitus,
298; SuERwiIN-WhuiTE, Pliny, 320 ; below, 240 n.24.
boletos, in quo cibi genere uenenum is acceperat

The earliest author known to have reported the mushroom poisoning
story is Pliny, NH 22.92, Inter ea, quae temere manduntur, et boletos meri-
lo posuerim.. inmenso exemplo in crimen adductos, ueneno Tiberio Claudio
principi per hanc occasionem ab coniuge Agrippina dato. But this was not the
only version of the story. Elsewhere Suetonius states (Claud. 44.2) that dif-
fering accounts existed of what happened to Claudius, et ueneno quidem oc-
cisum conuenit ; ubi autem et per quem dato, discrepat. quidam tradunt
epulanti in arce cum sacerdotibus per Halotum spadonem praegustatorem ;
alii domestico conuluio per ipsam Agrippinam, quae boletum medicatum
auidissimo ciborum talium optulerat. Likewise Tacitus knew of more than
one version, Ann. 12.67.1. Josephus, BJ 20.148, is rightly cautious ; cf.
Sen. Apoc. 2 for the problem of detail. The account making Halotus respon-
sible for the poisoning probably came from a source other than Pliny,
perhaps Cluvius Rufus ; so Townend, Hermes 88 (1960), 110, who believes
that Tacitus in his record has combined both original versions ; cf. also
Momigliano, Rend. Linc.5 8 (1932), 314ff.
It is thus impossible to assert anything with conviction other than that
Claudius was generally thought to have been murdered through the ad-
ministration of poison. For the general unawareness cf. W. Kroll, Raccolta
di scritti in onore di F. Ramorino (1925), 197. Probably the truth was never
known outside the court circle, which might lend authority to the 'Cluvian'
version, though as an intimate of Nero (above, 133), Cluvius will have had
reason to be wary of information made public. What is of value is to note
that Suetonius fails completely to distinguish between factual accuracy and
tradition. Equally, much of s.33.1 is nebulous in character and cannot be
verified. The dicta of Nero which Suetonius quotes were perhaps part of an
oral tradition current in the early second century, but then little evidence of
objectivity on Suetonius' own part.
For the tradition of mushroom poisoning, Mart. 1.20; Juv. 5.147ff;
Aur. Vict. De Caes. 4.13 ; Anon. Epit. de Caes. 4.10 ; cf., however, Phi-
lost. Vit. Apoll. 5.27 ; Oros. 7.6.18, where the mushroom tradition is avoid-
ed.
quasi deorum cibum posthac prouerbio Graeco conlaudare sit solitus

Cf. Dio 60.35.4, attributing to Nero the origin of the remark. Mo-
migliano, 696 n.4, unhesitatingly accepts the allegation of murder by
poisoning as fact, insisting that the present text has no meaning otherwise.
Yet it cannot be certain that Nero himself ever knew the truth. In itself this
text proves nothing (above, 195).
modo stultitiae modo saeuitiae arguens

Suetonius uses stultitia only of Claudius ; cf. Claud. 15.4, and for exam-
ples, Sen. Apoc. 4.1 ; Tac. Ann. 12.28.2 ; for saeuitia, Sen. Apoc. 10; 11;
14.1. The charge of stupidity against Claudius may be the result of political
bias on the part of the sources ; V. M. Scramuzza, The Emperor Claudius
(1942), 46f. The insistence on Claudian saeuitia fits in weil with the initial
period of the reign when Neronian clementia was being emphasised in
ideological contrast. Cf. above, 73.
nam et morari eum desisse inter homines producta prima syllaba iocabatur
For similar jibes dependent upon the same wordplay, Sen. Apoc. 7.3 ;
8.3; Suet. Claud. 38.3.
denique bustum eius consaepiri nisi humili leuique macería neglexit

For the syntax see H. C. Nuuing, CW 26 (1933), 151, who interprets
the text to suggest that Nero was not even responsible for the erection of a
wall, the emphasis being laid on the passive infinitive construction. The
Loeb translation understands an active usage of consaepiri, " he neglected to
enclose the place where his body was buried except with a low and mean
wall". The former view may be correct since there is no material record of
any Claudtan tomb. For a remark similar to the present text cf. Tac. Ann.
14.9.2, with reference to Agrippina, neque, dum Nero rerum potiebatur,
congesia aut clausa humus.
33.2 aemulatione uocis, quae illi iucundior suppetebat

The motivation ascribed to Nero here is comparable to the charge
levelled against him at Lucan's death; Tac. Amn. 15.49.3, Lucanum
propriae causae accendebant, quod famam carminum eius premebat Nero
prohibueratque ostentare, uanus adsimulatione. But equally, comparison
might be made with Tacitus' description of that episode in 55 when after
the Saturnalia Nero, hoping for amusement, compelled Britannicus to sing
during an entertainment ; sympathy for Britannicus, however, was more
forthcoming ; Tac. Ann. 13.15.2-3. If a common background is assumed for
the respective accounts of Britannicus! death in Tacitus and Suetonius the
information here may have been manipulated to suggest a personal jealousy
on Nero's part.
quam metu ne quandoque apud hominum gratiam paterna memoria praeua-

leret
This is evidently a more sensible estimate of motivation, and a rare
example of some political insight in the catalogue of murders from
Suetonius. Despite the apparent ease with which Nero had come to the
throne there was nonetheless still positive support for Britannicus as the
rightful heir of Claudius ; see above, 65 ; Tac. Ann. 12.69.2. As long as
Britannicus lived he represented a potential focal point of opposition to the
Neronian régime which Tacitus' account of 55 shows to have been half
realised : Agrippina threatened to substitute Britannicus for Nero as part of
her campaign to maintain control over Nero ; Tac. Ann. 13.14. There could
be no division of the imperial power. Cf. Rogers, TAPA 86 (1955), 198f.
ueneno adgressus est

For the assertion that Britannicus died by poisoning, cf. Tac. Ann.
13.15-16 ; Dio 61.1.7 ; 61.7.4 ; ps.-Sen. Oct. passim ; Schol. Juu. 1.71 ;
Jos. Ant. 20.153, far more definite than with Claudius ; BJ 2.150 ; Eutrop.
7.14.3 ; the date was February, 55, shortly before Britannicus fourteenth
birthday ; Tac. Ann. 13.15 ; PIR? C 820. Cf. Hohl, 360 ; Warmington, 45f.
Note also Suet. Titus 2, ut de potione, qua Britannicus hausta periit, Titus
quoque iuxta cubans gustasse credatur grauique morbo adflictatus diu. But
Suetonius does not include here the allegation of sexual attack before the
murder as Tacitus, Ann. 13.17.3, perhaps of dubious authenticity ; Hohl,
368 (cf. above, 160).
quadam Lucusta
Of Gailic origin, and adept in the art of poisoning, Lucusta was even-
tually put to death by Galba ; see Dio 64.3 ; Schol. Juu.1.71 ; PIR? L 414.
Although the literary sources portray her as an essential element in the
murder of Britannicus, Townend, art. cit., 110, observing the similarities of
detail between the traditional accounts of the murders of Britannicus and
Claudius, has argued that this feature properly belongs to the Claudius-
mushroom tradition and is derived from Pliny, while the association of
Lucusta with Britannicus' death stems from Cluvius Rufus who deliberately
introduced her into his narrative to improve his work. There is no proof for
this, however, and the logical conclusion of the argument (not drawn by
Townend explicitly) is that Lucusta was in no way involved in Britannicus'
murder. If correct, this would leave the details of Britannicus! death in
doubt. But there is no reason really why any number of authors should not
have been correct in describing the participation of Lucusta. Had an alter-
native tradition existed to explain Britannicus' murder it might be expected
to have been preserved in the sources. The unanimity of the literary
tradition, therefore, is of importance in this particular case. Lucusta,
however, is not mentioned by the earliest authorities, Pliny and Josephus, in

connection with the deaths of Britannicus or Claudius. The omission from
Pliny is particularly odd and may indicate that Lucusta did not figure in his
account, in his histories, of Claudius' murder at all.
cum opinione tardius cederet uentre modo Britannici moto

Cf. Tac. Ann. 13.15.6, tramisitque exoluta aluo parum ualidum ; and for
a similar description in the account of Claudius’ death, Tac. Ann. 12.67.1.
accersitam mulierem sua manu uerberauit arguens pro ueneno remedium

dedisse ; excusantique minus datum ad occultandam facinoris inuidiam :
sane, inquit, legem Iuliam timeo
Cf. Tac. Ann. 13.15.7 for the counterpart in Tacitus’ narrative, sed Nero
lenti sceleris impatiens minitari tribuno, iubere supplicium ueneficae, quod,
dum rumorem respiciunt, dum parant defensiones, securitatem morarentur.
Cf. Schol. Juu. 1.71. There was no /ex lulia which provided for cases of
murder by poisoning. so Suetonius appears to have made some mistake,
unless the reference is to the /ex Julia de ui. The relevant enactment should
have been the /ex Cornelia de sicariis et ueneficiis, which was still in
operation ; Dig. 48.8 ; Codex 9.16 ; Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary, 550.
coegitque se coram in cubiculo quam posset uelocissimum ac praesentaneum

coquere
Cf. Tac. Ann. 13.15.8, cubiculum Caesaris iuxta decoquitur uirus cognitis
antea uenenis rapidum.
33.3 inferri in triclinium darique cenanti secum Britannico imperauit

Cf. Tac. Ann. 13.16.1-2 ; Suet. Titus 2 (above, 198).
et cum ille ad primum gustum concidisset

The difficulty raised by the presence of a praegustator was overcome by
serving Britannicus with a hot drink, the poison being added to water used
to cool it; Tac. Ann. 13.16.2 ; cf. Schol. Juu. 1.71. Tacitus describes the
effects of the poison ; Ann. 13.16.3.
comitiali morbo ex consuetudine correptum apud conuiuas ementitus

Cf. Tac. Ann. 13.16.5, solitum ita ait per comitialem morbum quo prima
ab infantia adflictaretur Britannicus. Nero's assertion was perhaps part of
an official version intended to give a credible account of Britannicus sud-
den demise. Nero later appealed for sympathy, implying regret for the loss
of Britannicus ; Tac. Ann. 13.17.5, and it has been suggested that an in-
scription from Amisus in Pontus honouring Nero, Poppaea, and Britannicus
together and belonging to a time at least eight years after 55 is some
evidence that such a version was accepted ; G. E. Bean, Belleten Türk tarih
kurumu 20 (1956), 215f; SEG 16.748 (=Smallwood, Documents
no. 112). The story reported by Dio, 61.7.4, that the body of Britannicus
was covered with chalk to conceal the effects of the poison could also be
taken to mean that precautions had been taken in advance to obscure the
true circumstances of the death and to propagate a palace version.
postero die
Cf. Tac. Ann. 13.17.1, which gives the same night as the murder ; the
preparation for the burial had already been carried out.
raptim inter maximos imbres tralaticio extulit funere

Cf. Tac. Ann. 13.17.2, in campo tamen Martis sepultus est adeo turbidis
imbribus.
Lucustae pro nauata opera impunitatem praediaque ampla

This information on Lucusta does not appear elsewhere. [t refers pre-
sumably to release from the sentence under which Lucusta was held in the
period 54/55 ; Tac. Ann. 12.66.4 ; 13.15.4. She was still alive in 68 ;
s.47.1. No evidence survives of estates known to have been in her
possession.
sed et discipulos dedit

Cf. Schol. Juu. 1.71, quam (sc. Lucusta) etiam in familiaritate sua
habuit, (sc. Nero) ut etiam eum doceret uenena miscere.
34.1 Matrem facta dictaque sua exquirentem acerbius et corrigentem

Some indication perhaps of Agrippina’s potentia in the early months of
the reign ; cf. Tac. Ann. 13.12.1. The Tacitean items quoted above in the
section on the death of Britannicus show clearly enough that Tacitus and
Suetonius drew on a common fund of material for their respective accounts
of that event. The same is true for the death of Agrippina. Dio also has
similarities. Suetonius' style here assumes a discursive quality which is in
strong contrast to the terse, concise expression of those sections chiefly
made up of lists ; cf. above, 19 n.36. His treatment also tends to be more
sensationalistic than that of Tacitus; observe the concentration, for in-

stance, on the preparation and administration of the poison in ss.33.2-3.
Heinz, Das Bild, 23ff; 30ff, concludes that despite the common in-
formation found in the three main sources, Suetonius has significant
variations of detail unfavourably presented with regard to Nero, while the
overall presentation is made in a more personalised manner than in the
cases of Tacitus and Dio.
For the murder of Agrippina see Tac. Ann. 14.1-8 ; Dio 61.12-14 ; ps.-
Sen. Octauia passim ; Plin. NH 22.46 ; Hier. Chron. 2079g ; Philost. Vit.
Apoll. 4.38. For a modern expression of the view that the murder was a
political necessity, E. Paratore, Studi Romani 17 (1969), 269ff.
quasi cessurus imperio Rhodumque abiturus

The possibility of an abdication by Nero is not otherwise known. For
Nero's relationship with Rhodes see above, 60.
mox et honore omni et potestate priuauit

For Agrippina's honores see Tac. Ann. 13.2.5. Pallas’ removal from his
position as a rationibus in 55 deprived Agrippina of one of her principal
supporters ; Tac. Ann. 13.14.
abductaque militum et Germanorum statione

For verbal parallels, Tac. Ann. 13.18.4. And for the German bodyguard
see below, 275.
Palatio expulit
Cf. Tac. Ann. 13.18.5 : Agrippina now used the house which had once
belonged to Nero's maternal great grandmother Antonia. See Furneaux ad
loc.
in secessu
Agrippina had country estates at Antium and Tusculum; Tac. Ann.
14.3.1.
34.2 uerum minis eius ac uiolentia territus perdere statuit

For verbal parallels, Tac. Ann. 14.3.2. In 55 Agrippina had threatened to
make Britannicus emperor, had made a bid to win Octavia as an ally against
Nero, and allegedly organised an armed party. In the same year she suc-
cessfully rebutted charges of intending to set Rubellius Plautus on the
throne, although her innocence herein should not automatically be assumed.

The restoration of certain of her victims after her death in 59 may be a sign
that the charges had been taken seriously at the time. Tac. Ann. 13.12 ; 14;
18 ; 19-21 ; Rogers, TAPA 86 (1955), 202. Suetonius' statement suggests
that Agrippina's intrigues continued as late as 59. Nothing is known of her
in this later period, but it is clear that her power was not utterly broken af-
ter the dismissal from the palace ; cf. Tac. Ann. 14.1.5 ; 2.1 ; contra War-
mington, 47. Cf. Heinz, Das Bild, 30.
et cum ter ueneno temptasset

For resemblances, Tac. Ann. 14.3.3. The fuli detail, however, appears
only in Suetonius ; cf. Heinz, Das Bild, 31. The statement may be ten-
dentious since Tacitus has no record of an actual attempt to poison Agrip-
pina. Murders by poison are alleged to have occurred under Nero with
suspicious frequency.
sentiretque antidotis praemunitam

Cf. Tac. Ann. 14.3.3. Dio 61.12.2.
lacunaria, quae noctu super dormientem laxata machina deciderent, parauit

This item appears neither in Tacitus nor in Dio. It should be considered
the record of a separate plan for Agrippina's murder because Suetonius
distinguishes it from the camarae ruina below. It may have become
assimilated in Tacitus’ account of the shipwreck, cum dato signo ruere tec-
tum loci multo plumbo graue, Ann. 14.5.2, especially since the content
resemblances between Tacitus and Suetonius on the betrayal of a plan for
the murder concern different contexts ; below. Cf. Heinz, Das Bild, 31.
hoc consilio per conscios parum celato

Cf. Tac. Ann. 14.4.6 for content parallel, and above.
solutilem nauem, cuius uel naufragio uel camarae ruina periret

Cf. Tac. Ann. 14.3.6. Nero's former tutor, Anicetus, now prefect of the
fleet at Misenum, is credited with the idea of the collapsible boat by Tacitus,
Ann. 14.3.5-7. Dio, 61.12.2, traces its inspiration to such a ship seen in the
theatre.
commentus est
Anicetus alone is known by name to have deliberated with Nero on the
murder plans ; Tac. Ann. 14.3. But the conspirator Volusius Proculus may
have been involved too ; Tac. Ann. 15.51. Tacitus is hesitant (4nn. 14.7.2)
to pronounce on the complicity of Seneca and Burrus.
aique ita reconciliatione simulata iucundissimis litteris Baias euocauit ad

sollemnia Quinquatruum simul celebranda
Cf. Tac. Ann. 14.4.1-2 for parallels. Tacitus summarises the contents of
the letters, ferendas parentium iracundias et placandum animum dictitans.
The Quinquatrus was originally a one-day festival connected with Mars
celebrated five days after the ides of March, but it later became associated
with the worship of Minerva and was held from 19th to 23rd March ; W.
Warde Fowler, The Roman Festivals (1899), 57ff ; DS s.v. Quinquatruus.'
This reference is thus crucial for dating Agrippina's death. J. D. Bishop,
CPh 55 (1960), 164ff, attempts to place the murder after the festival but
before the sacrifice of the Arval brethren on 28th March (Henzen, Ixxiv,
77 = Smallwood, Documents, no. 22) on the grounds that the moon rose
too early during the Quinquatrus itself to allow for Tacitus’ nox sideribus
illustris (=‘moonless’) ; Ann. 14.5.1. The purpose of the Arval sacrifice is
not recorded although Henzen reasonably proposed sacrifices for the safety
of Nero. Bishop recognises that the alleged detection of the plot involving
Agerinus against Nero fell within the Quinquatrus, hence the celebrations of
Tac. Ann. 14.12.1, but fails to see that Anicetus was despatched to kill
Agrippina the same night on which the 'plot' was discovered ; Tac. Ann.
14.7 ; cf. also 14.10.1, reliquo noctis. It is thus preferable to regard the
ultimate possible date for Agrippina's death as 23/24th March.
Suetonius firmly places the celebration of the festival and accompanying
dinner party (conuiuium) at Baiae, in contrast to Dio, 62.13.1, who offers
Bauli. Textual problems at Tac. Amn. 14.4. allow no clear cut solution.
Likewise with the destination of Agrippina immediately after the shipwreck
(below, 204) : Suetonius gives Bauli, Dio Baiae. But the version of Sue-
tonius is preferable. The most significant point is that the burial of Agrip-
pina was carried out quickly and that her tomb was near Bauli ; Tac. Ann.
14.9.3. Agrippina may also have been the owner of a villa at Bauli ; cf. Tac.
Ann. 13.18.5 (above, 201) ; see P. J. Bicknell, Agrippina's Villa at Bauli in
CR n.s. 13 (1963), 261f ; D'Arms, op. cit., 95 n. 114; cf. also R. Katzoff,
Where was Agrippina Murdered? in Historia 22 (1973), 72ff.
For Baiae, "the first of the pleasure cities of antiquity", Friedlander, |
337 : D'Arms, op. cit., passim ; and for Seneca's disdain, Epp. Moral. 51.4.
Tacitus, Ann. 14.12.1, says that annual games were decreed by the senate
to commemorate the discovery of treachery during the Quinquatrus. [t is
known from the coinage that at some stage of the reign a second congiarium
was given, the coins actually bearing representations of Minerva. Mattingly,
BMC I clxxviii, pointing out the unknown quantity of the Minervan por-
traits, suggested some association with the Neronia or else ' an indication of
locality". It might equally well be that this distribution of largesse occurred
at some celebration of the Quinquatrus after 59 when the Minervan coins
would be particularly suitable. For an alternative explanation see above,
75f.
datoque negotio trierarchis, qui liburnicam qua aduecta erat uelut fortuito
concursu confringerent
Tacitus, Ann. 14.4.3, has Agrippina journey from Antium to Baiae from
where she is escorted by Nero to the villa at Bauli. Dio, 61.12. 3, states that
they travelled together to Bauli in the fatal ship in order to accustom Agrip-
pina to it.
protraxit conuiuium
Cf. Tac. Ann. 14.4.8 ; Dio 61.13.2 ; Heinz, Das Bild, 30. Note also Suet.
Otho 3.1, omnium autem consiliorum secretorumque particeps die, quem
necandae matri Nero destinarat, ad auertandas suspiciones cenam utrique
exquisitissimae comitatis dedit. This passage suggests that Otho owned a
villa at Baiae before his elevation to the throne. Bauli as the location of the
dinner must be excluded since it was an imperial possession. Bicknell, art.
cit., 262 ; D'Arms, op. cit., 99. The banquet obviously cannot be the one
given by Nero himself; contra Bishop, art. cit., 168f.
repetentique Baulos
Cf. Tac. Ann. 14.4.4 ; above, 203.
in digressu papillas quoque exosculatus

Cf. Tac. Ann. 14.4.8 ; Dio 61.13.2.
34.3 reliquum temporis cum magna trepidatione uigilauit

Suetonius here imposes his own interests on the basic source material.
The two other main accounts proceed to describe in detail Agrippina's fate
on the ship ; Tac. Ann. 14.5 ; Dio 61.13.3. Suetonius, in accordance with
the demands of biography, maintains the focus of attention on the central
character of his study.
For Agrippina's last words, unnecessary in the Suetonian narrative, see

Tac. Ann. 14.8 ; for a sceptical approach to the historicity of which, A. H.
Krappe, REA 42 (1940), 471f.
sed ut diuersa omnia nandoque euasisse eam comperit

Cf. Tac. Ann. 14.7.1 ; Mart. 4.63.
inops consilii
Perhaps a summary of Nero's consultation of Seneca and Burrus as in
Tac. Ann. 14.7.2.
L. Agermum libertum eius saluam et incolumem cum gaudio nuntiantem,

abiecto clam iuxta pugione ut percussorem sibi subornatum arripi constringi-
que iussit, matrem occidi, quasi deprehensum crimen uoluntaria morte
uitasset
Cf. for parallels Tac. Ann. 14.7.7 ; Dio 61.13.4. Agermus is the Agerinus
of Tac. Ann. Lc. ; Stein, PIR? A 456. Nothing more is known of him than
his participation in this episode. According to Tacitus he had been sent to
Nero by Agrippina. Suetonius’ account of the murder is much more
generalised than that of Tacitus, but the juxtaposition here of Agermus'
arrest and the order for Agrippina's murder seem to suggest that these
events were close on each other in time.
34.4 adduntur his atrociora nec incertis auctoribus: ad uisendum in-

terfectae cadauer accurrisse, contrectasse membra, alia uituperasse,
alia laudasse, sitique interim oborta bibisse
For parallels cf. Tac. 4nn 14.9.1 ; Dio 61.14.2 ; Heinz, Das Bild. 32.
Tacitus is less dogmatic than Suetonius and Dio.
nec incertis auctoribus

Heinz, Das Bild, i.c., suggests that this phrase is intended to add pro-
bability to the overall allegations. An interesting insight at least is given
into Suetonius' methodology, since he claims widespread authority for his
statement. But it is known from Tacitus, /.c., that some writers had in fact
denied Nero's inspection of Agrippina's corpse.
militum et senatus populique gratulationibus confirmaretur

An immediate show of support for Nero from the military was organised
by Burtus, and the reaction of the senate in Rome was equally sycophantic ;
Tac. Ann. 14.10.1 ; 12.1. A triumphal reception awaited Nero as he retur-

ned to the city, and it is likely that the meeting of the Arval priests on 28th
March resulted from this display of adulation ; Tac. Ann. 14.14.3 ; Henzen,
Smallwood, Documents, il.c. The letter to the senate from Nero which
rationalised the murder on grounds of political expediency was a further
step in the organization of support for Nero ; Tac. Ann. 14.10-11 ; cf. Dio
61.14.3. The authorship of the letter was ascribed by Quintilian, 8.5.18, to
Seneca, and this is difficult to dispute despite the objections of W. H.
Alexander, CPh 49 (1954), 94ff. In support of Senecan authorship cf. Tac.
Ann. 14.11.4 ; Hohl, 369. Again from Quintilian, 8.5.15, there is some in-
dication that the official version of Agrippina's death was accepted in some
quarters : Nero's felicitas is congratulated by a delegation of Gauls.
saepe confessus exagitari se materna specie uerberibusque Furiarum ac

taedis ardentibus
Cf. $.46.1; Tac. Ann. 14.10; Dio 61.14.1 ; Heinz, Das Bild, 33.
quin et facto per Magos sacro euocare Manes et exorare temptauit

There may be some truth in this remark for Nero is recorded elsewhere to
have dabbled in magical practices ; Plin. NH 30.14-17. The item may be
compared with the emphasis in the episode of Britannicus! death on the
preparation of poison by Lucusta ; above, 198f. Such emphasis is all part of
the technique of the characterisation of Nero. The episode here may perhaps
belong to 66 if it can be assumed that the magi concerned were those who
accompanied Tiridates to Rome; above, 90 ; cf. Plin. NH 30.17, magos
secum adduxerat, magicis etiam cenis eum (sc. Nero) initiauerat (sc.
Tiridates).
peregrinatione quidem Graeciae et Eleusinis sacris, quorum initiatione impii

et scelerati uoce praeconis summouentur, interesse non ausus est
There is no evidence to show Nero’s presence at Eleusis during the
Hellenic tour (for which see above, 137ff). A togate statue of Nero from
early in the reign has prompted the belief that it should be associated with
initiation, but there is nothing to lend support to this conjecture ; cf. C. C.
Vermeule, Roman Imperial Art in Greece and Asia Minor (1968), 198 (con-
jecture) ; 389 (statue). Nero is said in like measure to have avoided Athens
and Sparta, Dio 63.14.3, though both sites have produced representations
of him; Vermeule, op. cit., 209, 21].
34.5 lunxit parricidio matris amitae necem

Dio, 61.17.1-2, records under the year 59 the death, responsibility for
which is attributed to Nero, of Domitia, one of Nero's father's two sisters.
For the other, Domitia Lepida, see above, 57f; 185f. Stray reports of this
murder appear in the versions of Jerome's Chronicle (2079g) and they are
coupled with the death of Agrippina ; hence Dio's date looks correct. Sur-
prisingly Tacitus has nothing to say of this event. For the wealth of
Domitia see Quint. 6.1.50. See also above, 186.
grandis natu
Cf. Dio 61.17.1.
praecepitque medicis ut largius purgarent aegram

Dio, 61.17.1, claims the use of poison for the despatch of Domitia.
bona inuasit suppresso testamento, ne quid abscederet

Desire for Domitia's estates at Baiae and Ravenna is mentioned by Dio,
61.17.2 ; cf. Tac. Ann. 13.21.6, as the motive of Nero for the murder. But
it is doubtful that responsibility for the death actually lay with Nero. The
contents of Domitia's will are not known, but as she had no children it is
probable that Nero was her principal heir anyway. D'Arms, Romans on the
Bay of Naples (1970), 212, assumes that all of Domitia's properties fell into
Nero's possession in 59. Besides the estates mentioned, Domitia may also
have owned the horti Domitiae across the Tiber ; P/R? D 171 (Groag) ; cf.
D'Arms, op. cit., 211f; P. Grimal, Les Jardins romains (1943), 150ff (but
confusing the two Domitiae) ; Hohl, 370 ; above, 186.
35.1 Octauiam
For the marriage of Nero and Octavia see above, 61f. Their divorce oc-
curred in 62; Tac. Ann. 14.60 ; below, 210f.
Poppaeam Sabinam quaestorio patre natam et equiti R. antea nuptam

Poppaea's father was T. Ollius, son of Tiberius' great legate, a victim of
his association with Sejanus. Tacitus, Ann. 13.45.1, describes him at the
time of his death as honoribus nondum functum which, rather than con-
tradicting Suetonius here, may be understood to mean that he had not held
the higher magistracies ; Furneaux ad Tac. 4.c ; PIR' O 62; PIR? A 255.
Poppaea's previous husband was Rufrius Crispinus, an eques but dignita-
te senatoria ; Tac. Ann. 13.45.4 : 15.71.8 ; 16.17.1 ; Plut. Gab. 19.2. He
was praetorian prefect from (at least) 47 to 51 ; Tac. Ann. 11.1.3 ; 12.42.1-
2; RE s.v. praefectus praetorio' col. 2423. He was awarded praetorian in-
signia in 47, and later consular insignia also; Tac. Ann. 11.4.5 ; 16.11.2
(but see Furneaux ad /oc.). In the aftermath of the Pisonian conspiracy
Crispinus was exiled to Sardinia ; the following year he received the com-
mand to take his own life; Tac. Ann. 15.71.8 ; 16.7.2 ; cf. ps.-Sen. Oct.
730ff. PIR' R 121 ; RE I(a) col. 1201f. In the Octauia there seems to be a
tradition that Nero personally stabbed Crispinus to death.
Suetonius here avoids the complicated episode of Poppaea's marriage to
the future emperor Otho, reserving it for the appropriate biography ; cf.
Suet. Otho 3; Tac. Ann. 13.45.4 ; 46 ;, Plut. Galb. 19.
deinde Statiliam Messalinam Tauri bis consulis ac triumphalis abneptem

Nero's marriage to Statilia probably took place early in 66. This date is
deduced from the presence on Ephesian coins of the respective portraits of
Poppaea and Statilia with that of M.' Acilius Aviola, proconsul of Asia 65-
66, and the absence from the Tacitean record of any mention of Statilia as
Nero's wife. See W. H. Waddington, Fastes des provinces asiatiques de
l'empire romain (1872), no. 93; Henzen, ixxx, 172; PIR' S 625; RE
lil (a) col. 2209.
The father of Statilia was probably T. Statilius Taurus, cos. 44, obviously
a less distinguished individual than his ancestor the Augustan general T.
Statilius, cos. 37 B.C. ; CIL VI 6327 : 9482 ; PIR' 1c. ; S615 ; Syme, RR,
325; Ph. Fabia, Rev. de Phil. 19 (1895), 222.
Before she married Nero, Statilia had previously been married four times
according to Schol. Juuen. 6.434, but nothing is known of the first two
husbands. Statilia outlived Nero and almost became the wife of Otho in
69 ; Suet. Otho 10.2; Fabia, art. cit., 218ff.
qua ut poteretur, uirum eius Atticum Vestinum consulem in honore ipso

trucidauit
M. lulius Atticus Vestinus was consul ordinarius in 65, the year of Piso's
conspiracy ; Tac. Ann. 15.48.1 ; PIR? 1 624. He was probably the son of L.
Iulius Vestinus, an equestrian from Vienne who enjoyed the favour of
Claudius and rose to be prefect of Egypt in the early years of Nero's reign ;
PIR? | 622. Tacitus states that he was considered capable of Republican
sympathies and was not therefore coopted among the conspirators of 65 but
remained instead expers coniurationis ; Tac. Ann. 15.52.4-5.
The fact that Vestinus was put to death by Nero as a conspirator is true
enough ; Tac. Ann. 15.68 ; 69. Complicity in the plot was brought as a
charge against Vestinus in order to cover up a personal grudge on Nero's

part according to Tac. Ann. 15.52.5 ; 68.4. Elsewhere, however, Tacitus is
emphatic that no charge was brought against him ; Ann. 15.69.1. Suetonius,
100, inclines towards a personal motivation for the murder of Vestinus, but
neither his nor Tacitus' reason is compelling. Although Nero had suffered
from the barbed tongue of Vestinus, Tac. Amn. 15.68.4 ; cf. Quint. 6.3.64
(they had once been on intimate terms), it was not Neronian practice to
make such situations the basis of persecution ; see AJP 94 (1973), 172ff.
Also, the liaison between Nero and Statilia began before the latter's
marriage to Vestinus and is hardly likely to have been interrupted by it ;
Tac. Ann. 15.68.5. On the death of Poppaea in 65 Nero had attempted to
form a marriage alliance with Antonia before his marriage to Statilia (see
below, 213f), and that attempt belongs to the same year as Vestinus' death
and may possibly have followed it. At any rate, the marriage to Statilia did
not take place until the following year, 66 ; above, 208. Vestinus was
probably dead by ist July, the date for the suffecti of 65 to begin their term
of office, which means that there was an interval of at least six months
before the marriage to Statilia could take place. This interval, together with
the known plans of Nero to seek a wife other than Statilia after Poppaea's
death in 65 invalidates Suetonius’ reason for the death of Vestinus. Fabia,
art. cit., 225 n.l, argued that Suetonius was in error because Poppaea was
still alive at the time of Vestinus' death, but there is no way to prove this
the case. If the allegations of Vestinus’ Republican leanings are given any
credence, he may well have been a formidable character in politics, suf-
ficiently so to incur suspicion, while the overwhelming effect of the un-
covering of the Pisonian plot could have been excuse enough for the
removal of a potentially dangerous person. This account is at least
preferable to that of Suetonius, which is analogous to the personalised
motivation which appears in the version of Britannicus' death (s.33.2) and
which is equally dubious. An inscription from 66/67 which refers to an
event of 65 omits Vestinus' name from the consular date ; /LS 233. This
may be due to the notoriety of the Vestinus episode implicit in Suetonius'
source for this passage. An erasure of Vestinus' name is also likely in /nscr.
Ital. XU 1, 312 ( Z Smallwood, Documents, no. 132). See further SO 52
(1977), 79ff.
Octauiae consuetudinem cito aspernatus

Perhaps a limit of two years if Tacitus’ statement for 55 is reliable, Ann
13.12.2, quando uxore ab Octauia... abhorrebat. But there was probably
never any affection between Nero and Octavia.
corripientibus amicis
Dio, 62.13.1-2, in an anecdote which stresses the political value of the
Nero-Octavia union, points out the opposition of Burrus to the divorce. The
connection with the Claudian line would have been weakened and one of
the steps by which Nero had risen to the throne be called into question. See
above, 61f. In the record of Tacitus, Ann. 14.51-56, Burrus’ death and
Seneca's disappearance from the political arena precede the divorce.
sufficere illi debere respondit uxoria ornamenta

The dictum appears nowhere else ; cf. Heinz, Das Bild, 34. The text im-
plies an analogy with the awards of ornamenta triumphalia, consularia, etc.,
and should refer to Octavia's official honours. Coins from the eastern
provinces carrying her portrait were minted, but the appearance of the title
‘Augusta’ on certain issues was probably due to provincial spontaneity since
there is no evidence that the title was ever formally granted to Octavia. See
BMC Corinth 68f ; lonia 319f ; Lydia 254 ; Alexandria 16 ( = Smallwood,
Documents, no. 110a). She also appears as mv yuvatxa toU Xrfaoroo Nép-
tvog in IGRR IV, 969 from Samos ( = Smallwood, Documents, no. 110b).
and is probably included with other members of the imperial family in the
AFA ; Smallwood. Documents, no. 17.
35.2 eandem mox saepe frustra strangulare meditatus

The other main accounts do not record any such attempts on the life of
Octavia; cf. Heinz, Das Bild, 35. The assertion may be based on an
authority not used by Tacitus or Dio, but it resembles the allegation of an
attempt on the life of Agrippina by poison (s.34.2) and is most likely ten-
dentious.
dimisit ut sterilem
Cf. Tac. Ann. 14.60.1, exturbat Octauiam, sterilem dictitans ; cf. also
Ann. 14.63.1. For the quite informal procedure of divorce see Schulz,
Classical Roman Law (1951), 132f ; sterility was a perfectly acceptable
basis; Dig. 24.1.60.1; 61; 62 pr.
Nero's divorce from Octavia is described fully in Tacitus, Aan. 14.59-
64 ; cf. Dio 62.13.1-2. Tacitus’ and Suetonius’ versions must again be
assumed to share a common basis, but Suetonius in s.35.2 has produced a
muddled version of what appears in Tacitus. The main stages of the
proceedings are clear enough — divorce, exile, and death; dimisit;
relegauit ; occidit. But the rest is confused. To agree with the logical order
of Tacitus everything from sub crimine on must be understood to precede at

least relegauit. Similarly, the clause sed improbante ... conuiciis makes little
sense as an explanation where it is located. Heinz, Das Bild, 34, points out
that Suetonius says nothing of the rivalry between Octavia and Poppaea,
and credits Nero with sole responsibility for the former's death. See Meise,
Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Julisch-Claudischen Dynastie, 196ff.
sed improbanie diuortium populo nec parcente conuiciis

The divorce was followed by the dimissal of Octavia to Campania under
military surveillance ; Tac. Amn. 14.60.5. This produced a popular demon-
stration in Octavia's favour and the destruction of Poppaea's statues. Order
was restored by the military once Octavia's reinstatement was rumoured ;
Tac. Ann. 14.60.6 ; 61.1-2. Octavia's popular support is alluded to many
times in the Octauia ; e.g., 183; 185; 572; 647 ; 780 ; 792 ; (on the Oc-
tauia see especially C. J. Herington, CQ n.s. 11 [1961], 18ff). Poppaea
claimed that the plebs consisted only of Octavia's clients; Tac. Amm.
14.61.3. Cf. Z. Yavetz, Plebs and Princeps (1969), 35.
relegauit, denique occidit

Octavia was exiled to the island of Pandateria where she was put to death
a few days later ; Tac. Ann. 14.63.1 ; 64. The date of death was 9th, or just
perhaps l1th, June; cf. below, 292f ; B. W. Reece, AJP 90 (1969), 72ff.
For the meaning of relegauit see above, 49.
sub crimine adulteriorum adeo inpudenti falsoque

This text offers the best example of confusion in the section since
adultery in itself was not a capital offence (cf. Berger, Encyclopedic Dic-
tionary, 352). The reference is to only one lover, the Egyptian flute-player
Eucaerus, used by Poppaea to bring false charges against Octavia ; Tac.
Ann. 14.60.2-3.
quaestione
The torture of Octavia's maidservants to ascertain the truth of Poppaea's
charges. Tigellinus was responsible for the examination. Tac. Ann. 14.60.4 ;
62.1 ; cf. Dio 62.13.4.
pernegantibus cunctis
An exaggeration ; under torture some confessed the validity of the ac-
cusation ; Tac. Ann. 14.60.4.
Anicetum paedagogum suum indicem subiecerit

More substantial charges, including that of malestas, were felt necessary
after the lack of success with the adultery issue. The freedman Anicetus was
used to instigate the accusation ; Tac. Ann. 14.62. For the meaning of in-
dicem see below, 239, and for Anicetus, below, 285.
The account of Octavia's death is no more than skeletal. Suetonius em-
phasises the scandalous aspects of the episode with no interest in the
pressure brought to bear on Nero by Poppaea or the part played by
Tigellinus. These factors emerge only from the versions of the other main
sources. On the other hand the continued characterisation of Nero emerges
from the tendentious phrases adeo inpudenti falsoque and pernegantibus
cunctis, not quite as accurate as emphatic. Cf. Rogers, TAPA 86 (1955),
192 ; 203.
35.3 Poppaeam duodecimo die post diuortium Octauiae in matrimonium ac-

ceptam
The precision of this text cannot be independently confirmed. But it is
not untypical ; cf. s.40.4. The marriage probably belongs to 62, Tac. Ann.
14.60.1, but the liaison between Nero and Poppaea dated from 58, Tac.
Ann. 13.46 ; 14.60.2.
dilexit unice
Cf. Tac. Ann. 16.6.1 ; Dio 62.282.
et tamen ipsam quoque ictu calcis occidit

Poppaea's death was accounted for by two traditions, the one here
presented by Suetonius, the other a rumour of poisoning ; cf. Tacitus, Am.
16.6.1, who also inclines to the former view and dismisses the other as im-
plausible; see also Dio 62.27.4 ; Schol. Juuen. 6.462. In the parallel
passages from Tacitus and Dio it appears that Poppaea's death may have
been the result of an accident ; Suetonius, however, presents the material as
a deliberate intention on Nero's part. Cf. Heinz, Das Bild, 38, and for a
sceptical view of the incident, A. H. Krappe, REA 42 (1940), 470f. For a
much earlier similar incident, Hdt. 3.32.4 (Cambyses).
quod se ex aurigatione sero reuersum grauida et aegra conuiclis incesserat

The refinement is found only in Suetonius. For Poppaea's second
pregnancy cf. Tac. Ann. 16.6.1 ; Dio 62.274.
ex hac filiam tulit Claudiam Augustam

The child was born at Antium early in 63 ; Tac. Ann. 15.23 ; PIR? C
1061. The AFA have a sacrifice on 12th January of that year pro partu et
incolumitate which suggests an approximate date for the event ; Smallwood,
Documents, no. 24.
amisitque admodum infantem

Within four months ; deification followed ; Tac. Ann. 15.23.4. The child
may have died at Rome since the AFA point to the return there of the im-
perial family by early April. The excess of joy and sorrow on Nero's part at
the birth and death of the child (Tac. Ann. 15.23.) is explicable not least in
political terms given the need sooner or later to make succession arrange-
ments.
35.4 Nullum adeo necessitudinis genus est, quod non scelere perculerit
See above, 194f.
necessitudinis
Blood-relationship ; cf. Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary, s.v. 'necessitu-
do’, in contrast to affinitas below.
Antoniam Claudi filiam, recusantem post Poppaeae mortem nuptias suas,

quasi molitricem nouarum rerum interemit
Antonia was Claudius' daughter by Aelia Paetina ; Suet. Claud. 27.1 ;
Tac. Ann. 12.2.1 ; Jos. Ant. 20.150 ; PIR? A 886. She was born about 29 ;
H. Smilda, Vita Diui Claudi (1896), ad Suet. Claud. I.c. ; and so in 65 will
have been aged about thirty-six. She was twice married, to Cn. Pompeius
Magnus, who died in 47, and then to Faustus Cornelius Sulla, who died in
62; Dio 60.5.7 ; Suet. Claud. 27.2; Tac. Ann. 13.23.1 ; 14.57.
For Suetonius' assertion here cf. Schol. Juuen. 8.213, Antonia ... quae illi
nubere noluit. Poppaea's death probably belongs to the summer of 65 (see
SO 52 (1977), 79ff). Nero's proposal to Antonia, however. cannot have
been due to any real personal feelings since his liaison with Statilia
Messalina had already begun ; above, 209. Rather it was a political move.
Apart from Nero himself, Antonia was the only surviving member of the
imperial family, and acceptance of the marriage offer would have removed
for Nero a source of potential opposition to him; R. S. Rogers. TAPA 86
(1955), 209 ; Ph. Fabia, Rev. de Phil. 19 (1895), 2181f. Faustus Sulla had
indeed been suspected of imperial ambitions while married to Antonia ; Tac.
Ann. 15.57-59. The refusal of Nero's offer effectively sealed Antonia's fate.
In itself it meant that her behaviour was possibly treasonous since her
eligibility for marriage was an open invitation to any ambitious individual.
So a demonstration of behaviour which was unequivocally treasonable was
in a sense irrelevant to justify her removal.
That these potentialities did assume practical form, however, is implied
by Suetonius’ statement that Antonia was executed as a revolutionary. An
indirect notice at Dio 61.1.2 makes it certain that Nero was responsible for
her death, and Pliny, who must be Suetonius' source here, believed that she
was implicated in the Pisonian conspiracy : unde eum (sc. Piso) ... ferrent in
castra, comitante Antonia... ad eliciendum uulgi fauorem, quod C. Plinius
memorat, Tac. Ann. 15.53.4. That Tacitus disbelieved this report is no
reason for dismissing it out of hand, and it seems reasonable that it
provided the cause of Antonia's death. If credence is given to Suetonius’
evidence that Antonia died after Poppaea, that is, some time in 65 after
April when the conspiracy was discovered, then her death should fall in the
second half of that year, particularly so since Antonia does not appear in
Tacitus' catalogue of victims immediately after the conspiracy. See further
SO 52 (1977), 79ff. Cf. Hohi, 388 ; Henderson, 272, doubting Suetonius’
evidence but presenting no arguments.
quasi molitricem nouarum rerum

The phraseology is common in Suetonius; cf., e.g., Aug. 14; Domit.
10.2.
similiter [inter] ceteros aut affinitate aliqua sibi aut propinquitate coniunc-
tos
See above, 213. Affinitas means relationship by marriage as in the single
case below of Rufrius Crispinus ; RE I s.v. 'adfinitas' ; Dig. 38.10.4.3.
Propinquitas is strictly synonymous ; cf. Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary,
s.v. propinqui', but from the list of individuals which follow it seems to be
used in a looser sense of ‘friendship’.
Aulum Plautium iuuenem, quem cum ante mortem per uim conspurcasset :
eat nunc, inquit, mater mea et successorem meum osculetur, iactans dilec-
tum ab ea et ad spem imperii impulsum
Aulus Plautius is otherwise unknown, and it is impossible to ascertain
precisely his relationship to the imperial family. As his father P. Plautius
Pulcher (P/R' P 355), brother of Claudius’ wife Plautia Urgulanilla has
been suggested ; PIR! P 345 (de Rohden) ; see the stemma beneath PIR! P
361. But this seems unlikely because Nero cannot have been related to
Urgulanilla. Another possibility as the father is A. Plautius, the conqueror
of Britain, whose ouatio, it is thought, associated him in the popular mind
with the imperial house ; RE s.v. ‘Plautius’ no. 40 (Hoffman) ; cf. PIR! P
344. A third candidate is Ti. Plautius Silvanus Aelianus, on the basis of an
inscription which would, however, require an alteration of the praenomen
Aulus here ; RE s.v. 'Plautius' no. 48 ; Ephem. Epig. IX 918 ; cf. PIR' P
363. Also available for consideration is the Plautius Lateranus who was put
to death for conspiracy in 65 (PIR! P 354). Since none of these men can
securely be connected with the imperial family it is preferable to seek the
relationship through ‘friendship’ rather than by a marriage connection ; cf.
above.
Rogers, art. cit., 199, relying on Tac. Ann. 13.18.3, suggested 55, after
the death of Britannicus, as a likely time for the designs of Plautius.
Tacitus, strangely, does not mention him by name. Anyway, Agrippina's
death in 59 gives the ultimate possible date for any conspiratorial attempt
on the basis of the Suetonian evidence. [ts substance may find some support
in the association of Plautius with the so-called Stoic opposition ; see D.
McAlindon, AJP 77 (1956), 113f. Moreover, the implied sexual relation-
ship between Plautius and Agrippina need not be scurrilous alone ; Agrip-
pina was no stranger to politically motivated sexuality ; cf. Tac. Ann.
14.2.4. For Nero's homosexuality see above, 161.
35.5 priuignum Rufrium Crispinum Poppaea natum, impuberem adhuc, quia

ferebatur ducatus et imperia ludere, mergendum mari, dum piscaretur,
seruis ipsius demandauit
The child's existence is known from Tac. Ann. 13.45.4 ; for the father see
above, 207f. His death seems to be implied in a speech in the Octauia where
Poppaea describes a recent vision, uenientem intuor / comitante turba
coniugem quondam meum / natumque (728ff). If Suetonius’ evidence is
substantially correct, the death must fall after Nero's marriage to Poppaea
in 62 (above, 212) because of the term priuignus. The date of the Tacitus
item above is 58, thus making the child at least four years old at the time of
death. Given that the Octauia purports to be based on events of 62, that
year may well be the actual time of the death.
Tuscum nutricis filium relegauit

Two of Nero's nurses, Egloge and Alexandria, are known from s.50, but
which was the mother of Tuscus, if either, is beyond determination. But he
may well have been of Greek stock and freedman origin ; H.-G. Pflaum,
Les Carriéres procuratoriennes équestres (1960) 1, 44f. No other source
mentions Tuscus' exile, but it is clear that he was in Rome again by 69 ;
Tac. Hist. 3.38-39.
The prescription in the edict of Ti. lulius Alexander (/GRR I
1263 = Smallwood, Documents, no. 391) which abolishes compulsory con-
tracts for tax-farming refers (1.14) to the temporary injustice in this regard
of one of Alexander's predecessors, mv npóoxaipóv rwvoc áóixiav. This in-
dividual is usually identified as Caecina Tuscus ; cf. O. Reinmuth, TAPA 65
(1934), 258 ; G. Chalon, L'Edit de Tiberius Iulius Alexander (1964), 103.
The edict is only one piece of evidence which points to difficulties con-
cerning taxation in Egypt during Nero's reign; cf. H. I. Bell, JRS 28
(1938), Iff; C. B. Welles, JRS 28 (1938). 41ff. It is possible, therefore,
that Tuscus' exile had a deeper cause than that alleged by Suetonius. It may
have been a penalty for improper or unsatisfactory administration, in which
case it is not hard to see how the present charge might have been tacked on
to something more substantial, possibly as an indictment for maiestas.
relegauit
See above, 49.
in procuratione Aegypti
Tuscus held the post of /uridicus, assistant to the prefect in judicial mat-
ters in 51, was present in Rome in 55, and was prefect of Egypt from Sth
September, 63 perhaps until being replaced by Ti. Iulius Alexander in 66.
He is last recorded in office on 17th July, 64. Tac. Ann. 13.20 ; Dio
63.18.1 ; P. Ryl. 2.119 ; P. Yale inv. 1528 ; P. Fouad. 21 ; PIR? C 109 ;
Pflaum, /.c. ; A. Stein, Die Prafekten von Aegypten (1950), 35f ; Reinmuth,
BASP 4 (1967), 82. Tuscus' career shows the obvious favour of Nero until
the exile, perhaps because they shared some childhood association (Pflaum)
or because Nero relied for security on the relatively undistinguished origins
of Tuscus as later in the case of military appointments after 65. (Cf.
Chilver, JRS 47 [1957], 31D.
procuratione
The term is not used technically by Suetonius ; cf. Jul. 79.3 ; Galb. 15.2.
balineis in aduentum suum extructis lauisset

Cf. Dio 63.18.1 for a similar statement. For the significance of building
the baths see above, 115. A date c.66 seems the most reasonable time for
the relegation ; cf. below, 262. Schumann, 45f. accepts the causation
statements of Dio and Suetonius.
Senecam praeceptorem
See below, 286.
ad necem compulit
Seneca's death is narrated at length at Tac. Ann. 15.60-65 ; cf. also Dio
62.25. Suetonius has nothing to say of the possible complicity of Seneca in
the conspiracy of Piso which, in the Tacitean version, is given as the
pretext for his removal. On that issue, the probabilities argue for Seneca's
innocence, the circumstantial evidence for his involvement ; thus Hen-
derson, 283. The rumour that certain of the conspirators intended to raise
Seneca to the Principate (Tac. Ann. 15.65.1 ; cf. Juven. 8.211f) may have
been of more significance than appears from Tacitus. It suggests, as in the
case of Atticus Vestinus (for whom, above, 208f), that retribution was taken
against anyone who fell under suspicion in the uncertainty of 65.
Heinz, Das Bild, 42, points out that Suetonius' attitude here towards
Seneca, generally favourable, contrasts with the hostile attitude in s.52. See
Hier. Chron. 2084e for a tradition that Nero was not responsible for
Seneca's death.
quamuis saepe commeatum petenti bonisque cedenti

Tacitus, Ann. 14.53-54, records a speech delivered by Seneca before
Nero in 62 in which Seneca asks for his wealth, acquired through Nero's
generosity, to be subsumed into the imperial estate and for retirement from
public life to be granted to him. Cf. Dio 62.25.3.
saepe
Not altogether an exaggeration; cf. Tac. Anm. 15.45.5 for a second
request from retirement.
persancie iurasset suspectum se frustra periturumque potius quam nociturum

ei
None of this appears in Nero's reply to Seneca in Tacitus, Ann. 14.55-
56. But the encounter may have been variously reported.
Burro praefecto
The appointment of Burrus as praetorian prefect was effected through the
agency of Agrippina and began in 51 ; Tac. Ann. 12.42.2. His previous
career, in no way outstanding, consisted of a military tribunate and three

procuratorial positions in the service of the imperial household ; 7LS 1321
(= Smallwood, Documents, no. 259) ; PIR? A 441 ; cf. W. C. McDermott,
Latomus 8 (1949), 229ff ; Pflaum, op. cit., no. 13; B. Baldwin, La Parola
del Passato 117 (1967), 430ff.
remedium ad fauces pollicitus toxicum misit

Suetonius presents the poisoning as fact. In actuality this was a contested
report ; cf. Tac. Ann. 14.51.1, incertum ualetudine an ueneno. Dio, 62.13.3,
like Suetonius, also gives the poisoning version, and as fact. Tacitus’ alter-
native theory arose quod in se tumescentibus paulatim faucibus et impedito
meatu spiritum finiebat ; Ann. 14.51.2. According to Syme, Tacitus, 292,
Pliny was the source behind the version of murder ; but there is no proof.
The illness may be assumed genuine since it is common to both stories,
while the resemblances between the texts of Suetonius and Tacitus imply
that the former has collated the two versions ; that is, in a single sentence
Suetonius gives items from the two separate traditions in Tacitus.
The theory of murder is supported by McDermott, art. cit., 252f, who
argues that Burrus' illness provided a convenient screen for the murder,
Nero's motive being to undermine the position of Seneca. Cf. Fabia, Rev.de
Phil. 21 (1897), 235f. Henderson, 135, however, suggests death by natural
causes ; cf. Hohl, 374f. A definite answer is beyond reach, but for Suetonius
the theme of cruelty is sufficient to justify avoidance of possibilities other
than murder.
libertos diuites et senes, olim adoptionis mox dominationis suae fautores

atque rectores, ueneno partim cibis partim potionibus indito intercepit
Cf. Tac. Ann. 14.65.1, eodem anno (62) libertorum potissimos ueneno in-
terfecisse creditus est. Ti. Claudius Doryphorus was removed quasi aduer-
satum nuptiis Poppaeae ; Tac. Lc. For his wealth and estates in Egypt see
Dio 61.5.4 ; PIR? D 194 ; Schumann, 50. He held the position a libellis
until 62 ; Dio /.c. ; above, 164f. M. Antonius Pallas was removed quod im-
mensam pecuniam longa senecta detineret , Tac. /.c. His career is discussed
by S. I. Oost, AJP 79 (1958), 113ff. Oost believes Pallas’ death the resuit
of natural causes, to have occurred suddenly, thereby allowing the rumour
of poisoning to appear. Rogers favours the idea of death due to old age ; art.
cit., 206. Pallas indeed was probably in his sixties at the time of his death
(Oost). For his prodigious wealth, honestly acquired, see Tac. Ann.
12.53.2 ; Dio 62.14.3 ; Juven. 1.109 ; Front. De Aqued. 1.20 ; 2.69 ; Oost,
art. cit, 128 n.37 ; above, 186f. Pallas played a part in securing Nero's
adoption by Claudius but was deposed from the position a rationibus in 55,
so cannot have been among those who remained dominationis fautores. Cf.
also Schumann, 43f. A third freedman, Paris the dancer, was put to death
by Nero, but the motive attributed in this case to Nero stems from a
tradition different from the two former instances ; see s.54 ; Dio 63.18.1 ;
PIR' P 49. On Neronian freedmen see Schumann, 34ff, and cf. Rogers, /.c.
36.1 Nec minore saeuitia foris et in exteros grassatus est

The list of victims is extended to persons in no way connected with the
imperial family, household, or palace; see above, 194f.
stella crinita, quae summis potestatibus exitium portendere uulgo putatur,

per coniinuas noctes oriri coeperat
Under Nero five comets are known to have appeared, three in the years
64-66. The context here suggests that the present reference is to that of 64,
visible 3rd May until 16th July, because this is the only one sufficiently
close to the detection of the Pisonian conspiracy in April 65 in spite of Tac.
Ann. 15.47.1, fine anni (64) ... sidus cometes. The dates of the comets are
computed from Chinese records; see R. S. Rogers, TAPA 84 (1953),
2371f ; P. J. Bicknell, Latomus 28 (1969), 1074f. For similar definitions of
the significance of comets cf. Luc. 1.529; Stat. Theb. 1.708 , Juven.
6.407f.
Balbillo astrologo
This may be the man who, under Vespasian, gained permission to
celebrate sacred games at Ephesus ; Dio 66.9.2 (there called 'Barbillus") ;
cf. PIR? B 38 (Stein). But whether he should be identified with Ti. Claudius
Balbillus, prefect of Egypt 55-59, is not as certain. The two have been
distinguished, RE II col. 2818 (de Rohden) ; PIR? Lc. ; C 813 (Stein),
although Stein does identify the prefect of Egypt with the procurator
Balbillus known from Ephesian inscriptions ; Tac. Ann. 13.22. 1 ; Sen. NQ
4.2.13 ; Plin. NH 19.3 ; Smallwood, Documents, nos. 261a, 261b. So too
the majority of scholars. The majority, however, is also in favour of equat-
ing the prefect and the astrologer and, indeed, since after the prefecture of
Egypt was held, Ti. Claudius Balbillus is known to have held no further
position, there is no reason why he should not have been in Rome in 64,
the date of the comet (above) for consultation by Nero. Moreover, the
astrologer Balbillus is differentiated by F. H. Cramer, Astrology in Roman
Politics and Law (1954), 155, from the itinerant astrologers who were liable
to banishment at any time by the princeps. The fact that the astrologer was
the author of a tract on the astrological means of calculating life-spans, and
Seneca's description of the prefect as perfectusque in omni litterarum genere
rarissime, provides a strong reason for identifying prefect and astrologer;
NQ Lc. ; Cat. Cod. Astrol. 8.3, 103; F. Cumont, MEFR 37 (1918-19),
33ff ; Cramer, op. cit, 128. In addition to the works cited see, for full
discussion, H. Stuart Jones, JRS 16 (1926), 17ff ; A. N. Sherwin-White,
PBSR 15 (1939), 21 n.68 ; Magie, RRAM 1398 n.5 ; Pflaum, op. cir., no.
15; Schumann, 47ff; J. Schwarz, Bulletin de l'institut francais
d'archéologie orientale du Caire 49 (1950), 45ff.
didicit, solere reges talia ostenta caede aliqua illustri expiare atque a semet
in capita procerum depellere
Cf. Dio 61.18.2 for a similar, though more generalised anecdote. Dio's
information is given under the year 59, which is not suitable for comets ;
see Rogers, art. cit.; Bicknell, art. cit.
duabus coniurationibus prouulgatis, quarum prior maiorque Pisoniana Romae

Suetonius is astonishingly brief in his citation of the Pisonian conspiracy
of 65, an extensive account of which occurs at Tac. Amn. 15.48-74 ; cf. Dio
62.24f. The reason lies in the irrelevance of the details of the plot to the
conception of biography in general and the theme of cruelty in particular.
Suetonius, it would seem, realised that the penalties enacted after the con-
spiracy were justifiable while those people who were not punished at all
cannot have been of any use for illustrative purposes here. For discussions
of the conspiracy see Henderson, 225ff; Hohl, 384f ; Momigliano, 726f ;
cf. B. Baldwin, La Parola del Passato 117 (1967), 437f.
posterior Viniciana Beneuenti

This text is the only literary evidence for the Vinician conspiracy. It is
usually coupled with an entry in the AFA for 66, ob detecta nefariorum con-
silia ; Smallwood, Documents, nos. 25 ; 26. The loss of Tacitus’ account for
this year is sufficient to explain his tack of information on this topic ; but it
is somewhat surprising that nothing of it appears in Dio’s record.
Suetonius’ text implies that this was less serious an affair than the con-
spiracy of Piso, which could mean that fewer people were involved, or else
(and more likely) that detection was made at an earlier stage. Consilia in the
AFA might mean that the plot was in no more than initial stages (which is
perhaps the reason why Dio says nothing of i), and the double entry in the
AFA at the beginning and in the summer of 66 led Henzen (115) to posit a
gradual unravelling of the designs of the conspirators during the course of
the year.
Opinion favours Annius Vinicianus as the leader of the conspiracy ; P/R?
A 700 (Groag) ; RE Supp. II] col. 407 (Stein). In 66 he would still be a
young man, three years earlier not having reached the age of twenty-five ;
Tac. Ann. 15.28.4. His family background included a history of opposition
to the Principate, the most recent example of which had been the par-
ticipation in the Pisonian conspiracy of his brother, Annius Pollio, in 65 ;
Tac. Ann. 15.56.4 ; PIR? A 678. And it is possible that his family was
related to the imperial house; R. S. Rogers, TAPA 86 (1955), 196;
McAlindon, art. cit., 128. His last appearance in the literary sources is un-
der the year 64, Dio 62.23.6, so his death might be surmised soon after, a
possible confirmation, therefore, of his instigation of this plot.
The conspiracy has been associated with the deaths in 67 of Cn.
Domitius Corbulo, the father-in-law of Vinicianus, and the brothers
Scribonii, the argument being that the latter, as the governors of the Ger-
manies, would provide the military support necessary for the elevation to
the Principate of Corbulo ; Dio /.c. ; Momigliano, 731 ; cf. McAlindon, art.
cit., 129. See also Syme, JRS 60 (1970), 376 ; and for Corbulo's support
from his /egati, Tacitus, 789f.
Beneventum was probably selected as the site of the assassination of
Nero as he passed there en route for Greece; Hohl, 388.
36.2 coniurati e uinculis triplicium catenarum

Cf. Tac. Ann. 15.58.3, continua hinc et uincta agmina trahi ..., of
Pisonians, though logically Suetonius' text incorporates the other con-
spirators too. Furneaux, ad Tac.. /.c, suggests that the appearance of
prisoners on trial in chains was unusual.
cum quidam ultro crimen faterentur

Cf. Dio 62.24.1 for the voluntary confessions of Subrius Flavus and
Sulpicius Asper.
nonnulli etiam imputarent, tamquam aliter illi non possent nisi morte suc-
currere dedecorato flagitiis omnibus
Cf. Tac. Ann. 15.68.1 ; Dio 62.24.2 for the same dictum in accounts of
the Pisonian trials. The speaker in Sulpicius Asper, a centurion. Nonnulli is
thus an exaggeration. The thought of the dictum is comparable to that at

Tac. Ann. 15.67.2.
damnatorum liberi urbe pulsi enectique ueneno aut fame ; constat quosdam
cum paedagogis et capsaris uno prandio pariter necatos, alios diurnum uic-
tum prohibitos quaerere
This information may have been derived from an account of the Pisonian
conspiracy used only by Suetonius or else from an account of the other plot.
Possibly it was true in a few instances as in the case of the freedmen in
5.35.5. But, like much of s.36.2, it is misleading since logically it seems to
relate to both conspiracies. The confusion may well be deliberately con-
trived.
37.1 Nullus posthac adhibitus dilectus aut modus interimendi quoscumque

libuisset quacumque de causa
See above, 194f.
sed ne de pluribus referam

For the device see, for example, Tib. 61.2. The principle of selectivity
(above, 16 n.15) again requires attention here. It is noticeable that from
$.35.4 on, few of the case-histories used for illustrative purposes by
Suetonius occur also in Tacitus. This is due in part to the loss of the last
books of the Annals, but it is of some interest to emphasise the absence
from Suetonius of accounts of the deaths of people such as Lucan (indeed,
members of the ‘literary opposition’ to Nero are completely missing in
Suetonius' catalogue of victims), Corbulo, the Scribonii, and so on. [n spite
of the generalisations only seven people outside the imperial family appear
here as the objects of Neronian cruelty. On the ‘literary opposition’ see inter
al. W. C. Korfmacher, TAPA 69 (1938), xliif ; L. Herrmann, Latomus 11
(1952), 199f ; I. K. Horvath, SrudCias 3 (1961), 335f ; P. McCloskey, E.
Phinney, Hermes 96 (1968), 80ff ; J. P. Sullivan, TAPA 99 (1968), 4521f ;
F. M. Ahl, TAPA 102 (1971), 1ff.
Saluidieno Orfito
Sergius Cornelius (Scipio) Salvidienus Orfitus, cos. 51; Tac. Aan.
12.41.1 ; cf. e.g., ILS 4375 , 5025 ; PIR? C 1444. Little was known of his
career or activities in public life, though ZRT 341 now provides details of
his cursus. He was still alive in 65 ; Tac. Ann. 16.12.3. His last office, the
proconsulship of Africa, is dated to 61/2 or 62/3 by B. E. Thomasson, Die
Statthalter der rómischen Provinzen Nordafrikas (1960), II 41f.
Saluidieno
Only here; Thomasson, op. cit, 41 n.114.
obiectum est
For the participation of the delator Aquillius Regulus in the bringing of
charges, cf. Tac. Hist. 4.42 ; Sherwin-White, Pliny, 96.
quod tabernas tres de domo sua circa forum ciuitatibus ad stationem locasset
Cf. Dio 62.27.1, where Orfitus is said to have been put on trial and
killed for living near the forum and entertaining friends in shops he leased
there. The most likely charge was of maiestas ; cf. RE IV s.v. ‘Cornelius’
no. 359. McAlindon, art. cit., 130, stresses the patrician rank of Orfitus as
a possible indication of his dangerousness. Dio's information is given under
the year 65.
stationem
Cf. Sherwin-White, Pliny, 115.
Cassio Longino iuris consulto ac luminibus orbato

The descent of C. Cassius Longinus from the tyrannicide, his
distinguished public career, and equivocal behaviour under Caligula (Suet.
Calig. 57.3; Dio 59.29.3) made him a figure of consequence. After his
consulship in 30, he governed Asia from 40 to 41, and was subsequently
legate of Syria, 44-49 ; Dio /.c. ; Jos. Ant. 20.1 ; Tac. Ann. 12.11 ; PIR? C
501. For his juristic eminence and influence see Tac. Ann. 12.12 ; Sherwin-
White, ad Plin. Epp. 7.24.8 ; Jolowicz, Historical Introduction’, 382f.
quod in uetere gentilis] stemmate C. Cassi percussoris Caesaris imagines

retinuisset
Cf. Dio 62.27.1 ; Tac. Ann. 16.7.3, obiectauitque Cassio quod inter
imagines malorum etiam C. Cassi effigiem coluisset, ita inscriptam duci par-
tium. Tacitus' development of the common material is more extensive than
that of either Dio or Suetonius. Cf. Ann. 16.7-9, where revolution is hinted
at under the nominal leadership of L. Silanus. Suetonius' reason for the in-
dictment of Cassius is essentially trivial (though see Sherwin-White, Pliny,
126), but Cassius' association with the murderer of Caesar may in the
public consciousness have been his most distinctive characteristic. His
marriage connection with the [unii Silani, a family outstanding for its long
history of opposition to the Principate, seems a more substantial cause for
seditious activities ; Tac. Amn. 16.7.2; McAlindon, art cit, 122; cf.
Rogers, TAPA 83 (1952), 305. Suetonius, as Dio, implies falsely that
Cassius Longinus was put to death under Nero. [n reality exile to Sardinia
was the only penalty, Tac. Amn. 16.9.1 ; below, 261. According to Dig.
12.2.52 Cassius was recalled to Rome by Vespasian.
Paeto Thraseae
The public career of Thrasea Paetus, cos. 56, is not well-documented ; cf.
PIR? C 1187. His political attitude during the period 59-63 was to protect
senatorial decency against encroachments on the part of the emperor. A
personal feud with Nero was the result; Tac. Ann. 13.49 ; 14.12; 16.21 ;
14.48-49 ; 15.20-22. From 62 on, an attitude of recalcitrant opposition
was demonstrated by total absence from the senate ; Tac. Ann. 16.22. In 66
Thrasea was accused by the delators Cossutianus Capito and Eprius Mar-
cellus and condemned to death, allegedly at the instigation of Nero ; Tac.
Ann. 16.21ff.
Thrasea was a member of another family group characterised by a long
line of opposition to the Principate, here from Claudius to Domitian at
least ; cf. McAlindon, ari. cit., 113. His motives for passive resistance to
Nero have been much debated, but the most reasonable view is that he was
inspired neither by Republican sympathies nor by Stoic teaching, with
which his passivism cannot be equated. The preservation of senatorial
political dignity was his prime aim, and philosophical influences can be
shown to be no more than subsidiary at most. For discussion see G.
Boissier, L'Opposition sous les Césars (1900) ; A. Sizoo, REL 4 (1926),
229ff ; REL § (1927), 41ff ; Rostovtzeff, SEHRE? 114 ; J. M. C. Toynbee,
GR 13 (1944), 43ff ; Ch. Wirszubski, Libertas As A Political Idea at Rome
(1950), 138; Syme, Tacitus, 556; Sherwin-White, Pliny, 241; R.
MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order (1966), 1ff ; Warmington, 142ff ;
Cizek, 179ff; AJP 95 (1974), 202.
tristior et paedagogi uultus

The negative actions which comprised the basis of Thrasea's indictment
are catalogued at Tac. Ann. 16.21-22 ; cf. Dio 62.26.3-4. Thrasea's facial
expression can hardly have been the basis of an accusation, nor is it likely
that Suetonius believed so. The overriding purpose is still to illustrate
Nero's cruelty, quacumque de causa ; hence the triviality. However, this
thumbnail sketch of Thrasea should not be totally underestimated, for it
would represent to Suetonius' contemporaries the conventional portrait of
the dissenting philosopher rebuking the excesses of the emperor. Cf. Tac.
Ann. 16.22.3, et habet (sc. Thrasea) sectatores uel potius satellites, qui non-
dum contumaciam sententiarum sed habitum uultumque eius sectantur,
rigidi et tristes, quo tibi (sc. Nero) lasciuiam exprobrent ; cf. Sherwin-
White, Pliny, 109. Thus, there is some indirect evidence here that Thrasea
was indirectly associated with philosophers, though this notion could have
been applied retrospectively by writers of the Flavio-Trajanic era ; cf. Mac-
Mullen, op. cit., 22. It can be noted that D. R. Dudley, A History of Roman
Cynicism (1937), 129, described the Cynic philosopher as a social com-
mentator and corrector, thus a paedagogus. Stylistic considerations, how-
ever, outweigh those of historical accuracy here, and as in the case of
Cassius Longinus above, Suetonius avoids sounds reasons for the trial and
death of Thrasea.
37.2 medicos admouebat qui cunctantes continuo curarent

Cf. Tac. Ann. 15.69.3, clauditur cubiculo, praesto est medicus, ab-
scinduntur uenae ; the occasion is the death of Atticus Vestinus (see above,
208f). But there is no implication that Nero was involved in the Tacitus
passage.
creditur etiam polyphago cuidam Aegypti generis crudam carnem et quidquid

daretur mandere assueto, concupisse uiuos homines laniandos absumendos-
que obicere
This curious and far-fetched item reappears with some elaboration in the
Chronographer of the Year 354 (s.v. “Nero’): fuit polyfagus natione
Alexandrinus nomine Arpocras, qui manducauit pauca : aprum coctum, galli-
nam uiuam, cum suas sibi pinnas, oua c, pineas c, clauos galligares, uitrea
fracta, thallos de scopa palmea, mappas iiii porcellum lactantem,
manipulum feni, et adhuc esuriens esse uidebatur. For equal outrageousness
cf. Vedius Pollio's eels; Sen. De Clem. 1.18.2.
37.3 negauit quemquam principum scisse quid sibi liceret

If genuine this quotation is of interest as a statement of the omnipotence
of the princeps, and recalls the similar boast of Caligula ; Suet. Calig. 29.
There was in fact no limit on the emperor's powers since any restrictions
imposed by his imperium and tribunician power could be overcome through
the use of auctoritas. Contrast, however, the enlightened view of the
autocratic nature of the Principate at Sen. De Clem. 1.1.2-4. It should not
be thought that /icet has any legal connotations here (for which see, for in-
stance, Suet. Aug. 28.2 ; Calig. 1.1 ; Plin. Epp. 4.9.17). The usage is much
broader. Yet it may have been statements such as these of Caligula and
Nero which led in part to the definition in 69 of what was legally per-
missible to the princeps; cf. ILS 244.
multasque nec dubias significationes saepe iecit, ne reliquis quidem se par-

surum senatoribus, eumque ordinem sublaturum quandoque e re p. ac
prouincias et exercitus equiti R. ac libertis permissurum
Cf. Dio 63.23.3 (obviously rhetorical) ; 63.27.2, which might date the
present text to 68. The threats are taken seriously by A. R. Birley, CR n.s.
12 (1962), 197f, as a real cause of senatorial alienation in the period after
65. But it is not quite right to connect the passage with Helius' ad-
ministration of Rome during Nero's absence in Greece (Birley) because this
makes no sense of prouincias or exercitus. A more likely cause of discontent
on the part of the established senatorial nobility may have been the ap-
pointment to military commands after 65 of less illustrious men ; cf.
Chilver, JRS 47 (1957), 31ff.
certe neque adueniens neque proficiscens quemquam osculo impertiit ac ne

resalutatione quidem
The implication is that the greeting-kiss was irregular. But it was used
equally by emperors and private citizens ; Suet. Otho 6.2 ; Tac. Agric. 40.3 ;
Sen. De Ira 2.24.2; Mart. 11.98; DS s.v. “Salutatio’.
et in auspicando opere Isth[i]mi[i] magna frequentia clare ut sibi ac populo

R. bene res uerteret optauit dissimulata senatus mentione
This anecdote is explicable perhaps as a portrayal of the state of Nero's
feeling after the receipt of Helius' news on the unsettled conditions in Rome
at the end of 67 ; cf. Latomus 37 (1978) ; s.19.2.
Section 38 : The Great Fire
In this section Suetonius concerns himself with a description of the fire

of 64. The tendentiousness already observed in sections after s.26.1 must
again be emphasised : as a ‘victim’ of Nero the whole population and city of
Rome now are arrived at (cf. above, 194f) (!*). There is therefore a pre-
supposition that Nero was personally responsible for the fire which is de-
(14) S.38.1, Sed nec populo aut moenibus patriae pepercit.

manded by the method of composition, and which is manifest throughout

the description (!5). Of necessity this affects the validity of the whole sec-
tion. Even though Suetonius was aware of varying traditions about the
origin of the fire — s.16.1, for example, refers to measures enacted after the
fire and corresponds to Tac. Ann. 15.43.1-2, material which is probably de-
rived from a source favourable to Nero (!$) — there is little sign of this in
the present section, and where favourable material does appear a certain
‘deflationary’ technique is applied to it ('’). Thus there is no attempt by
Suetonius to produce an objective account or evaluation.
Comparison of the content of the Suetonian piece with that of Tacitus
(Ann. 15.38-43) confirms this view of Suetonius’ presentation. The bio-
grapher has nothing to say of the exact location of the fire's outbreak, the
exact extent of the damage to the city, Nero's presence at Antium, virtually
nothing on the relief measures, nothing on the second outbreak of fire, the
date of the catastrophe, or the rebuilding of the city (though see s.16.1).
Since, however, he must have been aware of this material it is apparent that
he has deliberately selected his information to accord with the requirements
of the theme of crudelitas. The introductory anecdote supports this im-
pression of material sifting. It is plainly intended to demonstrate Nero's
irresponsibility and to set the tone for the full description (cf. above, 165,
similarly). The item does not appear in Tacitus, but similar material does
occur in Dio and elsewhere in Suetonius’ Tiberius ('*). It has been plausibly
suggested that Suetonius has divided information found in a basic source
and applied both to Tiberius and to Nero between his own lives of these two
emperors (!?). Dio, on the other hand, goes some way toward an awkward
reduplication of the material in his versions (??). Such selectivity should be
viewed as a sign of independence in the presentation of Suetonius' biased
portrait.
The view is taken here that the demands of the literary presentation ex-
clude practically all historical basis in s.38, at least as far as the principal
(15) 8.38.1. planeque id fecit; incendii urbem tam palam , cf. s.39.1, tantis ex principe
malis probrisque.
(16) R. Hanscix, Der Erzáhlungskomplex vorn Brand Roms under Christenverfolgung bei
Tacitus in WS 76 (1963), 921T; 95.
(17) S.38.3, ac ne non... permisit; see commentary ad loc.. and below. 242.
(18) Dro 58.23.4 ; 62.16.1 ; Suet. Tib. 62.3. Originally the material seems to have been
coupled with a Priam reference : G. B. TowNEND, The Sources of the Greek in Suetonius in
Hermes 88 (1960), 9811; 112f.
(19) TowNEND. art. cir., 112f.
(20) Ibid.
idea, Nero's personal responsibility for the fire, is concerned. Where in-
formation does appear to be factual in origin, it is detrimental to Nero. For
the rest the material surely consists of stories subsequently embroidered
around the rumour of Nero's culpability. Even at the time of the fire,
however, there was no certain knowledge of how it began (?!), but the no-
tion that Nero had fired the city was immediately forthcoming (??). Once
the fire became recorded as an historical event, the oral rumour was siezed
upon and the embryonic tradition hardened. It seems pointless to speculate
who the hostile source (or sources) of the extant literary authorities may
have been. Cluvius Rufus is favoured by Townend and Beaujeu (cited
below), the elder Pliny by Syme and Hanslik — among many others. For
present purposes it is enough to observe the confusion from the outset. The
resuit is that the historical value of Suetonius' piece is minimal, except for
illustrating the strength and credibility of the rumour in Suetonius’ own
day, the fixed and unfavourable nature, that is, of the Neronian tradition in
general.
38.1 patriae
The choice of this word, which is rarely used by Suetonius (cf. Howard,
Jackson, s.v.), where the less emotional urbs would suffice, plainly coincides
with the subjective approach to the topic of Suetonius outlined above. The
coming passage, therefore, will further illustrate the notion of parricida.
iuo Üavóvroc yaia petyytes nupt

A well-known, but anonymous verse ; cf. Cic. De Fin. 3.19.64 ; Sen. De
Clem. 2.2.2; A. Nauck, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta? (1926),
Adespota 513. [t appears at Dio 58.23.4 under the year 33, as Tiberius
makes arrangements for the succession, selecting Caligula ; Tiberius is said
to have frequently uttered this verse, and to have referred to Priam as a
happy survivor from the destruction of his city. The Priam reference reap-
pears in Dio 62.16.1 and Suet. Tib. 62.3, so both authors have arranged the
basic material according to their own wishes, Suetonius perhaps more
skillfully ; cf. above, 227. Townend, art. cit., 112, believes that the com-
plete anecdote originally applied only to Tiberius and that the common
source transferred it to Nero also. If this view is correct the anecdote has no
(201) Tac. Ann. 15.38.1.

(22) Cf. Cizex, 18f; and observe the contemporary opinion of Subrius Flavus ; Tac.
Ann. 15.67.3, incendiarius extitisti.
historical value at all for Nero. It simply accords with the hostile tradition
that Nero was an incendiary, but was in the first place distinct from it.
éuoU Gavtosg
This quotation does not appear elsewhere. It is perhaps an adaptation by
Suetonius himself, or at least by his source, of the Greek verse above, to fit
the existing tradition of Nero's responsibility for the fire. The parallel ob-
served by Heinz, Das Bild, 43, with Dio 62.16.1, tjv te nóÀw GAnv xai rv
Baotheiav Cov ávaAdG aat, seems fortuitous rather than exact.
nam quasi offensus deformitate ueterum aedificiorum et angustiis flexuris-

que uicorum
Cf. Tac. Ann. 15.38.4, obnoxia urbe artis itineribus hucque et illuc flexis
atque enormibus uicis ; 15.40.3; 15.43.5 ; Dio 62.16.4. Without a doubt
the narrow streets of the urban centre of Rome constituted a permanent fire
risk, a risk that was compounded by overcrowding and the use in building
of poor materials ; J. Beaujeu, L'/ncendie de Rome en 64 et les Chrétiens in
Latomus 19 (1960), 65ff ; 291ff ; 68 ; H. V. Canter, Conflagrations in An-
cient Rome in CJ 27 (1931-32), 281. It is equally well-known that a
revolution in townplanning occurred with the rebuilding after the fire of the
devastated areas of the city, and that Nero himself played a prominent part
in this ; Tac. Ann. 15.43 ; above, 100; L. Homo, Rome impériale et l'ur-
banisme dans l'antiquité (1951), 303ff; cf. Balland, MEFR 77 (1965),
349ff. Moreover, the number of public monuments destroyed was ap-
preciable, to which the construction of a personal residence by Nero on an
unprecedented scale made a sharp contrast ; Tac. Ann. 15.41.1-2 ; above,
169ff. To contemporaries, therefore, the belief that Nero was motivated to
burn the city in order to rebuild on his own lines will have followed this set
of circumstances quite naturally ; Tac. Ann. 15.40.3. Indeed, Balland, art.
cit., suggests that s.31.1 may indicate that Nero had planned to rebuild
Rome before the fire, though he does not consider it likely that Nero burned
the city. And because the evidence for arson is so inconsequential (below,
230f) this motivation statement must be regarded as a rationalisation made
after the fire once the noua urbs and the Domus Aurea were in evidence. In
spite of Nero's specific measure to widen streets, Tac. Ann. 15.43.1, the
fire-risk did not entirely disappear. The city was by no means wholly
rebuilt, and Juvenal (3.2360) later alluded to the same hazard ; cf. Homo,
op. cit, 306f.
quasi
It is worth emphasising that Suetonius attributes a serious motive to Nero
concerning the fire, because it shows him aware of a tradition other than
that of arson by caprice.
incendit urbem tam palam

On any fair consideration Suetonius' unequivocal claim should be regar-
ded as erroneous, the argument depending on the favourable stratum of
Tacitus’ narrative and general probability. The frequency with which Rome
was ravaged by fire at ali periods is a commonplace ; see Friedlander, I
21ff; Z. Yavetz, The Living Conditions of the Urban Plebs in Latomus 17
(1958), 500ff. Cases of arson of course are not unknown, but in the main
the density of the urban population, poorly constructed buildings, and the
lack of effective fire-fighting forces made Rome a natural prey to chance
outbreaks of fire; Liv. 26.27.5 ; 34.44.7 ; Tac. Ann. 15.18.3 ; Suet. Titus
8.3 ; Canter, art. cit., 280 ; cf. P. A. Brunt, Past and Present 35 (1966),
3ff. The thoroughness with which Nero set out to prevent the spread of fire
once it was seen to be more dangerous than usual, and the extensive relief
measures which followed argue against Neronian responsibility for the
calamity ; Tac. Ann. 15.39.2-3 ; 40.1. In addition, it is worth observation
that Nero's popularity with the p/ebs did not entirely disappear during the
crisis ; Yavetz, Plebs and Princeps (1969), 126ff. There is little to the view
that Nero's presence at Antium at the time of the outbreak of the fire
provides a further reason for his exculpation, Tac. Ann. 15.39.1, but the ob-
servation that the brightness of the first night of the fire, the result of an
almost full moon, would have made arson easily detectable stands firm ; C.
Huelsen, The Burning of Rome under Nero in AJA 13 (1909), 45ff. More-
over, it is difficult to understand precisely how Nero could have benefitted
from a wilful burning of the city. Although the development of the belief
that he fired the city in order to rebuild it and rename it after himself is
comprehensible (Tac. Ann 15.40.3), the insubstantial nature of such a
motivation is apparent both from Tacitus (nb. uidebatur), and when
examined rationally. An orderly programme of supervised demolition and
reconstruction would surely have been easily feasible and far more practical
than an uncontrolled conflagration. It is unlikely too, that Nero would have
wished to destroy the Domus Transitoria, which was under construction
when the fire occurred ; above, 171f ; Tac. Ann. 15.39.1. As noted earlier,
the city was not wholly redeveloped after the fire ; the four uici unaffected
by the fire were left completely untouched ; Homo, op. cit., 306ff ; which
cannot accord with any wide-ranging plan for total reconstruction. For con-
tinued urban redevelopment under Vespasian note /LS 245, uias urbis
neglegentia superior. tempor. corruptas ... restituit, which further supports
this view.
The sum of these considerations leans to an exculpation of Nero and to a
fortuitous origin for the fire; cf. Beaujeu, art. cit., 305 ; Cizek, 90 n.4.
There remains, however, the hostile evidence of Plin. VH 17.5 (the bias of
which is followed by the author of the Ociauia), lotae ... durauerunique ...
ad Neronis principis incendia, quibus cremauit urbem annis postea cultu
uirides iuuenesque, ni princeps ille adcelerasset etiam arborum mortem. In
itself this is of insufficient weight against the more detailed account of
Tacitus. It is also suspect on textual grounds : the clause quibus cremauit
urbem may be an insertion or a gloss, and the final condition has also been
seen as an accretion ; see Townend, art. cit., 111. Finally, it may be added
that no hostile comments on the issue of the fire are directed against Nero
either by Josephus or Martial, ordinarily ill-disposed to him.
plerique consulares
The vague plural is suspicious ; cf. Dio 62.16.2. Townend, art. cit., 111,
suggests the point of the consular reference is to lend weight to the
allegation ; cf. above, 227.
cubicularios eius cum stuppa taedaque in praediis suis deprehensos non at-
tigerint
Dio, 62.16.2, also refers to Neronian agents raising fires in various parts
of the city. But both authors are extremely vague and plainly at odds with
the more factual and authoritative account of Tacitus. The latter has the fire
begin at a southeasterly point of the Circus Maximus ; Ann. 15.38.2,
initium in ea parte circi ortum quae Palatino Caelioque montibus contigua
est. The present allegation looks very much like a post-eventum fabrication.
Large-scale fires in the past had been considered the result of incendiarism
because of the type of outbreak of fire here alleged. And the extent of the
present fire was virtually unprecedented ; Liv. //.c. ; cf. Homo, op. cit., 299.
Human action, therefore, must be responsible.
et quaedam horrea circa domum Auream, quorum spatium maxime desidera-

bat, ut bellicis machinis labefacta atque inflammata sint, quod saxeo muro
constructa erant
Cf. Oros. 7.7.5 for verbal echoes. The statements here, however, have
rightly been considered fictitious ; Heinz, Das Bild, 44. There is no need to
follow Morford, Eranos 66 (1968), 161, who understands the Colosseum

valley to have been a commercial area. For the Domus Aurea, see above,
169ff.
38.2 per sex dies septemque noctes ea clade saeuitum est

The fire's duration is variously reported. In Tacitus, Ann. 15.40.1, the
fire paused on the sixth day ; that information is consistent with Suetonius
here. Tacitus also gives the date on which the fire began, 19th July (Ann.
15.41.3), probably, therefore, the night of 18th/ 19th if Suetonius’ seven
nights are taken as genuine (although Oros. 7.7.4 is no corroboration of
this despite Beaujeu, art. cit., 66). Tacitus, however, Ann. 15.40.2, goes on
to say that the fire restarted, but he does not say how much longer it lasted.
A votive inscription from the time of Domitian, CIL VI 1, 826, contains
the following statement, quando urbs per nouem dies arsit Neronianis tem-
poribus. Accordingly, it has been concluded that the second phase lasted for
three days ; Beaujeu, art. cit., 67. Suetonius' ignorance of the second phase
must result from his lack of concern to produce an exhaustive account from
his sources.
Suetonius’ figures are retained at Oros. 7.7.4 ; Dio 62.17.1 is hopeless.
ad monumentorum bustorumque deuersoria plebe compulsa

Cf. Oros. 7.7.5 for verbal parallels. The present passage may perhaps be
identified with Tacitus’ account of the opening of the Campus Martius and
the monumenta Agrippae as refugee centres ; Ann. 15.39.2. The building ac-
tivities of M. Agrippa were extensive in the area of the Campus Martius, in-
cluding the Campus Agrippae, Saepta lulia, Thermae Agrippae, the Aqua
Virgo, the Pantheon, Euripus, Porticus Vipsania, and the Porticus
Argonautarum ; see Piatner, Ashby, Zopographical Dictionary, s.vv. In the
same region was the Mausoleum Augusti and it is possibly to this
conglomeration of buildings that Suetonius here refers. If so, then it is ob-
viously clear that much of Regio IX (Circus Flamininus), in particular the
northern section of the Campus Martius which had been highly developed
in the Augustan period, escaped the worst ravages of the fire even though
the second phase probably began in the southern area of the Campus ; Tac.
Ann. 15.40 ; Platner, Ashby, Topographical Dictionary, s.v. “Aemilianae’.
Again, if the identification proposed is correct, it is clear that Suetonius
has used more than one source in preparing his own version. Tac. Ann.
15.39.2 derives from the favourable tradition ; Hanslik, art. cir, 94;
Townend, art. cit, 111 ; but Suetonius seems to have adapted the in-
formation of his source to emphasise the sufferings of the community at

large rather than, as Tacitus, the action of Nero in organising relief. Cf.
above, 227.
tunc praeter immensum numerum insularum domus priscorum ducum ar-

serunt hostilibus adhuc spoliis adornatae deorumque aedes ab regibus ac
deinde Punicis et Gallicis bellis uotae dedicataeque
Cf. Tac. Ann. 15.41.1. Vagueness is again the chief characteristic of
Suetonius' text. He is far less concerned than Tacitus with an exact review
of the material damage to the city. Neither author, however, provides
statistics for the number of destroyed insulae and domus. Yet a late source
does preserve some figures which may not be totally unreliable: centum
triginta duae domus, insulae quattuor milia sex diebus arsere ; Epistolae
Senecae ad Paulum et Pauli ad Senecam (quae uocantur) Xl (XII), ed. C.
W. Barlow (1938). These numbers may have originated from a now lost
chronology ; Barlow, op. cit., 83; cf. Beaujeu, art. cit., 69.
Tac. Ann. 15.41.2 gives a list of the allegedly destroyed religious
buildings ; a temple to Luna on the Aventine, the Ara Maxima of Hercules
[nvictus in the Forum Boarium, the temple of Jupiter Stator probably on the
Palatine, the Regia and Temple of Vesta at the east end of the forum. But it
is clear that his account is over-stated : the temple to Luna alone was fully
destroyed, the other buildings suffering no more than partial damage or else
being quickly restored by Nero; see Platner, Ashby, Topographical Dic-
tionary, s.vv. Other damaged buildings included the amphitheatre of Sta-
tilius Taurus; Dio 62.18.2; the temple of Palatine Apollo, the Palatine
library, the Theatre of Marcellus, and the Palatium Tiberianum. Again,
however, for the most part, restoration and continued usage seem to have
followed swiftly ; cf. Beaujeu, art. cit., 68.
Tacitus also describes the affected regiones of the city; Ann. 15.40.4,
quattuor integrae manebant, tres solo tenus deiectae : septem reliquis pauca
tectorum uestigia supererant, lacera et semusta. There is general agreement
that the totally devastated areas were III (Isis et Serapis), X (Palatium), and
XI (Circus Maximus) ; cf. Beaujeu, art. cit., 67 ; Furneaux, ad Tac. ic. ;
Homo, op. cit., 300. The untouched sections were XIV (Trans Tiberim) and
I (Porta Capena) with certainty, then either V (Esquiliae) and VI (Alta
Semita), or V and VII (Via Lata); cf. Beaujeu, Furneaux, Homo, //.c. ;
also, Balland, MEFR 77 (1965), 351 n.2 ; J. E. Packer, JRS 57 (1967),
80ff.
et quidquid uisendum atque memorabile ex antiquitate duraurerat

Fiction.
e turre Maecenatiana
The tower of Maecenas stood in gardens on the Esquiline which had also
been laid out by Maecenas. After his death they became imperial property ;
cf. Suet. Tib. 15.1 ; P. Grimal, Les Jardins romains? (1969), 143f. The gar-
dens were connected with the Palatine by means of the Domus Transitoria ;
Tac. Ann. 15.39.1 ; cf. Platner, Ashby, Topographical Dictionary s.vv.
‘turris Maecenatiana' ; 'horti Maecenatis ; above, 171.
laetusque flammae, ut aiebat, pulchritudine Halosin Ilii in illo suo scaenico

habitu decantauit
Cf. Tac. Ann. 15.39.3 ; Dio 62.18.1. For later sources following and
preserving this tradition, Eutrop. 7.14.3 ; Oros. 7.7.6 ; Hier. Chron. 2080s.
It is known that Nero composed an epic poem on the fall of Troy and it
has been supposed that the present Halosis was an extract from this longer
work ; Dio 62.29.1 ; Juvenal. 8.221 ; Mayor ad loc. ; H. Bardon, Les Em-
pereurs et les lettres latines? (1968), 210 ; Cizek, 392. This is to accept the
literal authority of the story, but the alternative view is preferable that this
episode is part of the post-fire fabrication of events produced by sources
hostile to Nero; cf. Momigliano, 723 ; Heinz, Das Bild, 44, "jene kaum
glaubwürdige Episode". Tacitus (4c.) preserves the valuable fact that the
story was in essence no more than rumor, and in his version Nero appears
on a private stage. The value of the story is even further diminished if it is
recalled that the use of rumour by Tacitus is a frequently used device for the
denigration of the emperor; Hanslik, art. cit., 94. As in the case of the
responsibility for the outbreak of the fire, Suetonius has presented as fact
what his sources presented as possibility only.
The impact which this rumour produced after the event may be estimated
from the appearance of an Halosis Troiae at Petron. Sar. 89; K. F. C.
Rose, The Date and Author of the Satyricon (1971), 86. This was once con-
sidered to be a deliberate parody of Nero’s supposed piece, although modern
opinion inclines against such a view, preferring to see in the Petronian ver-
sion a parody of the style of Seneca ; R. H. Crum, CW 45 (1951/52), 165 ;
J. P. Sullivan, The Satyricon of Petronius (1968), 186ff ; P. G. Walsh, The
Roman Novel (1970), 46ff. The latter notion, although convincingly
argued, does not prove, however, that Petronius did not hint through his
composition at an aspect of the rumour current in 65 and later. The
existence of two similarly based works, one in extract form as part of a

larger composition which has certain allusions to Nero, seems too coin-
cidental to disallow this. Cf. G. Scheda, Historia 16 (1967), 111ff.
38.3 ac ne non hinc quoque quantum posset praedae et manubiarum

inuaderet
The statement is likely to be contrived. Parallels with Tacitus suggest that
the more factual piece of the sentence (below) came from a source
favourable to Nero, but an element of causation of this type here appears
neither in Tacitus nor in Dio. Again, therefore, Suetonius has manipulated
material to coincide with his overall negative portrayal of the emperor.
pollicitus cadauerum et ruderum gratuitam egestionem

Cf. Tac. Ann. 15.43.4, ruderi accipiendo Ostiensis paludes destinabat
utique naues quae frumentum Tiberi subuectassent onustae rudere de-
currerent. Since the Tacitean piece is derived from a favourable source,
Hanslik, art. cit., 95, it follows from the similarity of content that Sue-
tonius" information came from the same source. Obviously in this sentence
there has been a collation of materials.
nemini ad reliquias rerum suarum adire permisit

Perhaps a disparaging version of Nero's activities in constructing refugee
shelters ; cf. Tac. Ann. 15.39.2.
conlationibusque non receptis modo uerum et efflagitatis prouincias priua-

torumque census prope exhausit
For a review of the evidence on confiscations under Nero see above,
1851f. Strictly speaking the present text should apply only to the period of
the fire and thereafter, for which cf. Tac. Ann. 15.45.1 ; Dio 62.18.5.
conlationibus
For subscriptions solicited from individuals or communities see Ruggiero,
DE il, 602.
39.1 accesserunt tantís ex principe malis probrisque quaedam et fortuita

The Tendenz of the biography reaches an upper limit in s.39. The
foregoing mala probraque from s.19.3 on have been attributable directly to
Nero. Now, however, chance ma/a will be presented, yet they will still act to
the personal discredit of Nero ; (observe the emphasis of s.40.1, talem prin-
cipem). The implication is that Nero himself was infelix, that he had mala
fortuna ; cf. above, 15 ; 46.
pestilentia unius autumni, quo triginta funerum milia in rationem Libitinae

uenerunt
For verbal resemblances, cf. Oros. 7.7.11. Under the year 65 Tacitus,
Ann. 16.13.1-3, describes a plague which is usually identified with Sue-
tonius' notice here. Verbal dissimilarities, however, suggest the use of
separate sources. Tacitus' version is rhetorical and dwells on the huge num-
bers of dead, but with no precise statistics. Suetonius' figure is not thus in-
dependently supported, but receives some indirect corroboration from an
entry in Hier. Chron. 2096i which states that almost ten thousand deaths a
day were recorded in a plague extending over many days in 77. For out-
breaks of plague as a continual danger in antiquity see Friedlander, | 27ff ;
cf. P. A. Brunt, /talian Manpower (1971), 386.
Libitina, goddess of funerals, was identified with Venus, and at her
grove, probably on the Esquiline, deaths were recorded and burial arrange-
ments transacted ; Dion. Hal. 4.5 ; Plut. Q. Rom. 269a ; Platner, Ashby,
Topographical Dictionary, s.v. 'Lucus Libitinae' ; DS s.v. 'Libitina' ; A.
Thaniel, LEC 41 (1973), 46ff.
clades Britannica, qua duo praecipua oppida magna ciuium sociorumque

caede direpta sunt
The reference is to the rebellion of Boudicca, for which see Tac. Ann.
14.29-39 ; Agric. 16; Dio 62.1.1-12.6.
The precise date of the uprising is uncertain but is likely to be 60 rather
than the Tacitean date of 61 (Ann. 14.29.1) : the events assigned to the
single year 61 are too excessive for chronological logic ; Henderson, 477f ;
Syme, Tacitus, 765. The centres destroyed numbered not two, as Suetonius
and Dio (62.1.1) have it, but three, Camulodunum, Londinium, and
Verulamium ; Tac. Ann. 14.31-33. This information is confirmed by the ar-
chaeological record; cf. S. S. Frere, Verulamium, Three Roman Cities in
Antiquity 38 (1964), 103ff ; 105 ; C. F. C. Hawkes, M. R. Hull, Camulodu-
num (1947), 56; R. Merrifield, The Roman City of London (1965), 37fF.
Differing source traditions must explain the anomaly, unless Suetonius con-
sidered Verulamium less significant a centre than the other two (note,
praecipua oppida). See Townend, Hermes 92 (1964), 473, for the
possibility that Cluvius Rufus was the source here. On the numbers killed in
the uprising Dio and Tacitus are both more explicit than Suetonius. Dio,
62.1.1, gives 80,000, Tacitus, Ann. 14.33.5, 70,000 citizens and allies ; cf.
C. M. Bulst, The Rebellion of Queen Boudicca in A.D. 60 in Historia 10
(1961), 496fT ; 504 n.67. On the rebellion in general S. S. Frere, Britannia
(1967), 87ff; D. R. Dudley, G. Webster, The Rebellion of Boudicca
(1962); Bulst, art. cit. ; J. C. Overbeck, AJP 90 (1969), 129ff.
For verbal echoes of Suetonius here, Eutrop. 7.14.4 ; Oros. 7.7.11.
ignominia ad Orientem legionibus in Armenia sub iugum missis aegreque

Syria retenta
The context is the disgrace suffered by Caesennius Paetus at the hands of
Vologaesus at Rhandeia in 62 ; Tac. Ann. 15.10-16 ; Dio 62.21.1. But the
notice is exaggerated. The subjugation is recorded only as rumour at Tac.
Ann. 15.15.2, and is not mentioned at all by Dio. As with the item on the
destruction of the British towns (above), Suetonius has seized on the lowest
ebb of Roman fortunes in the eastern campaigns as an adverse personal
reflection on Nero. The assertion as fact of what was no more than rumour
is not new in Suetonius, but the reference to a difficult retention of Syria is
unfounded. Possibly Suetonius was thinking of the Parthian request for a
removal of the Roman bridgehead on the Euphrates into the territory of
Parthia; Tac. Ann. 15.17.4 (probably at Zeugma, cf. Furneaux ad /oc.),
which was made to Corbulo in 62. The discrepancy in accuracy between
this item and the notice of the plague (above, 236) is notable. It may be
the outcome of Suetonius' sources, but at any rate it is clear that impression
as opposed to factual exactitude is Suetonius' prime concern. The position-
ing of key-words, pestilentia, clades, ignominia, sufficiently illustrates this.
On the Armenian problem see in general Henderson, 151ff ; W. Schur,
Die Orientpolitik des Kaisers Nero, Klio Beiheft 15 (1923), 7ff ; M. Ham-
mond, Corbulo and Nero's Eastern Policy in HSCPh 45 (1934), 811T ; K.-
H. Ziegler, Die Beziehungen zwischen Rom und dem Partherreich (1964),
67ff.
mirum et uel praecipue notabile inter haec fuerit nihil eum patientius quam
maledicta et conuicia hominum tulisse, neque in ullos leniorem quam qui se
dictis aut carminibus lacessissent extitisse
This assertion, together with what follows, is important evidence for
Nero's attitude towards slanders and libels, and in particular for the
development of the /ex maiestatis during his reign. Along with it should be
considered the statement at s.32.2, tunc ut lege malestatis facta dictaque
omnia, quibus modo delator non deesset, tenerentur. The latter passage in
isolation can be misleading. Its context shows that Suetonius is concerned

with the financial profit which might be derived from successful pro-
secutions for treason, but it is not necessarily an indictment of Nero for the
encouragement of maiestas trials in any despotic manner. Such a view
results from the contents of Tac. Ann. 14 and 15, and still tends to affect
modern interpretations ; Momigliano, 730, for instance, refers to the period
following the Pisonian conspiracy as a “persecution”.
The history of the /ex Iulia maiestatis is still distressingly uncertain. The
potentially treasonable nature of slanders may have been allowed for in the
Sullan treason law, but by the time of Augustus it is clear that maiestas
could certainly include libels ; Cic. Ad Fam. 3.11.2 ; Tac. Ann. 1.72.4 ; J.
E. Allison, J. D. Cloud, The lex Iulia maiestatis in Latomus 21 (1962),
711ff ; 719. Under Tiberius libel against the princeps, or a member of his
family, could be, and was seen to be an offence; cf. Tac. Ann. 3.49f
(Clutorius Priscus) ; 4.34 (Cremutius Cordus) ; contra R. S. Rogers, TAPA
90 (1959), 224ff. The deciding factor was the princeps' view of the
seriousness of the insult, as shown by Tiberius’ responses concerning
Falanius and Rubrius, Granius Marcellus, Appuleia, and so on ; Tac. Ann.
1.73; 1.74 ; 2.50 ; cf. Suet. Aug. 55. Nero, therefore, had every precedent
for treating offensive verses as cases of maiestas minuta, but there is no
evidence that he did so. After all, how could slanders of the type re-
presented at s.39.2 be prevented? Not by arbitrary punishment surely. They
must have appeared as graffiti, not the type of carmina composed by
Clutorius Priscus, and betokened little threat to the well-being of the prin-
ceps. Even if the auctores of such verses had been discovered, the belief in
Nero's misdemeanours implicit in the taunts could not have been eradic-
tated. The most important issue seems to have been the presence of reliable
delator (cf. s.32.2) in situations analogous to that defined by Trajan with
respect to the Christians in Bithynia; Plin. Epp. 10.97.2.
Other than the instances mentioned in s.39 there are few libel cases at-
tested. for Nero's reign, the most interesting being that of Antistius
Sosianus, which was probably the result of circumstances with which Nero
had little to do. See AJP 94 (1973), 172ff for a full discussion of the
evidence.
inter haec
This should provide a rough chronological context for the whole
statement since the fortuita mala appear to belong to the early sixties.
39.2 Népuv 'Opéorns "AÀxuíwv unvpoxTóvog

Cf. Dio 61.16.2?, where this line appears in the context of Nero's return
to Rome in 59 after the matricide. Townend, Hermes 88 (1960), 104,
believes that this and all the following pasquinades belong "to the very last
years of the reign" because of the allusions to the Domus Aurea and Nero's
hatred for the senate, and because Tacitus, Ann. 14.13.2, states that Nero
suffered no popular criticism when he arrived from Naples in 59. But it is
inconceivable that graffiti referring to Agrippina's murder did not appear
soon after the event. The pasquinades here need not be considered an awk-
ward insertion (Townend) if the view given of them above (238) is correct.
quosdam per indicem delatos ad senatum adfici grauiore poena prohibuit

It has sensibly been suggested that this text derives from the source
which provided Tacitus (Amn. 14.48-49) with the details of the trial in 62
of Antistius Sosianus, for a full discussion of which see AJP Lc.
indicem
An informer, but not the delator who brings the formal accusation ; cf.
Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary, s.v. index.
39.3 Isidorus Cynicus in publico clara uoce corripuerat, quod Naupli mala
bene cantitaret
Isidorus is otherwise unknown, but this text has been briefly discussed by
R. S. Rogers, CW 39 (1945-46), 53f, who attempted to define the allusion
to Nauplius through equating the story of Palamedes' death in a deep well
containing treasure with the episode of Caesellius Bassus (above, 183f). But
the text hardly makes this clear. Cf. K. F. C. Rose, The Date and Author of
the Satyricon (1971), 84ff.
corripuerat
The reproach may belong to the Cynic's function as paedagogus to
mankind ; cf. D. R. Dudley, A History of Cynicism (1937), 129 ; above,
224f.
Datus
Otherwise unknown.
histrionem et philosophum Nero nihil amplius quam urbe Italiaque sum-

mouit, uel contemptu omnis infamiae uel ne fatendo dolorem irritaret
ingenia
240 SUETONIUS^ L/FE OF NERO
Cf. Hier. Chron. 2084h. According to Dio 61.16.3, Nero refused to take
legal action against reports of matricide slanders. Dio's motive for Nero is
close to Suetonius’ here, roe ur) Bovdduevos Exi. nÀetov óc abt ti rum
énavéjoat, T) xai xavagpowov dn rev Acyouévwwy. Since both Isidorus and
Datus are concerned with matricide jibes, it may be that Dio has based his
statement on a source which gave these concrete examples to Suetonius.
The date of 59, and the context of Nero's return to Rome after the murder
of Agrippina might then follow from Dio's account. Both authors at least
concur on the leniency meted out to offenders by Nero. The phrase urbe
Italiaque summouit is a close approximation to the legal penalty of in-
terdictio (cf. Tac. Ann. 3.50.6) and again suggests no stretching of the law.
Sections 40-50 : The Demise of Nero
These ten sections form a unit, the subject of which is the fall from power
and death of Nero. It begins with the rebellion of Vindex and concludes
with Nero's funeral. As such the unit is a regular component part of
Suetonius’ biographical schema (??), a part which in itself is representative
of the contemporary interest in exitus literature (?*). The entire piece has a
certain logical progression: an introduction, the announcement of the
rebellion, Nero's return from Naples to Rome, the measures taken to com-
bat the insurgents, the spread of the revolt, Nero's despair and flight, his
death and burial. But this broad outline of events is the nearest approach of
Suetonius to achieving a fully chronological narrative. There is no precise
or elaborate presentation of the whole fabric of circumstances, in regular
sequence, under which Nero was driven to death. Nor indeed, is an
‘historical’ account of this type Suetonius’ intention ; as always, he is in-
terested only in recounting events from the viewpoint of the subject of the
biography (?*) and any development or situation which has no immediate
and direct effect on Nero is excluded no matter what its importance in the
wider historical perspective. There is no mention, for instance, of Verginius
Rufus. It appears reasonable to suppose, therefore, that Suetonius presup-
posed a comprehensive background knowledge on the part of his readership
as far as the circumstantial situation was concerned. Any possibility of ob-
(23) Cf. for example, /ul. 81-84.4 : Aug. 97-100 ; Calig. 57-58; Claud. 44.2-46.
(24) See above, 18 ; 195. It affected Tacitus also ; cf. F. A. Marx, Philologus 92 (1937),
83ff.
(25) See above, 14.
scurity that the terseness of the text might suggest would thereby be ob-
viated.
There is more, however, than this somewhat loose logical progression,
for interspersed among the progressive elements are sections written in the
cataloguing style which is so much a feature of Suetonius’ methodology.
And this in sharp contrast to the extended, discursive style of the pro-
gressive elements. The whole is thus a blend of two types of composition, a
basic analysis of which appears as follows :
s.40.1 Introductory diuisio.
ss.40.2-3 Predictions of Nero's fate. Exemplary style.
ss.40.4-41.2 Events from the outbreak of the rebellion until Nero's return
to Rome. Discursive style.
$5.42.1-2 News of Galba's defection and Nero's reaction. Discursive.
s.43.1 Rumoured intentions of Nero. Exemplary.
s.43.2 Measures actually taken. Discursive.
ss.44.1-45.1 Further measures taken. Exemplary.
s.45.2 Alienation of Nero's popular support. Exemplary.
ss.46.1-3 Omens and portents. Exemplary.
$5.47.1-2 Further defections ; Nero's plans for escape. Discursive.
$s.47.3-49.4 The flight from Rome and Nero's death. Discursive.
s.50. The burial. Discursive, but perhaps with accretions.
For comparative purposes the main literary sources available are

Plutarch's Life of Galba and Dio. Late sources such as Aurelius Victor, the
Epit. de Caes., Eutropius, Orosius, and Jerome. are occasionally useful but
are more important for illustrating the maintenance of Suetonius' language
and material in later centuries. Examination of the main accounts means
that a common basis of material must be assumed given the number of
resemblances and parallel passages. But each author has used the common
material, and other information, to coincide with individual interests. It
becomes apparent in addition that the greatest number of correspondences
fall within those passages from Suetonius labelled discursive (76), so that for
(26) Items of common material in exemplary sections are at s.40.2. ró réywov jug
dcatpeper ; 8.43.1, senatum uniuersum... necare , urbem incendere . see below, 247 ; 263.
Ceriain of the parallels between Suetonius and Dio are collected by Heinz, Das Bild. 61ff.
On s.43.1 and Dio 63.27.2, Heinz (63) observes that Dio presents as fact no more than
two of the items which Suetonius alleges Nero to have considered only, and emphasises
Dio's tendency to convert material in malam partem. Whatever Dio's motives or objectives.
this situation is due to the fact that s.43.] is exemplary. Suetonius has acquired information
from elsewhere than the common source with which Dio is apparently unfamiliar.
the exemplary sections Suetonius has supplemented the information from

the common narrative with materials acquired independently.
A further stylistic feature which calls for comment is the 'deflationary'
technique with which within a discursive passage events may be coloured by
appendages which reflect adversely upon Nero. Such observations are
clearly devices of characterisation, and the author's conception of his sub-
ject's personality is a further hindrance to an objective account. Ss. 40-50
follow swiftly the demonstration of Nero's enormities (ss.26.1ff) so that at
this point of the biography feeling is already directed against Nero; talem
principem (s.40.1) emphasises this from the outset (7). But in s.40.4 it can
be seen without doubt how the bias of Suetonius operates against Nero.
First a statement of fact is given — Nero receives news of the Gallic
uprising — which is straightway modified by a reference to the date, die
ipso quo matrem occiderat, not simply careful attention to accuracy since
ensuing time references tend to be vague, but a remark by its content
deliberately prejudicial. Then another fact, adeoque lente ac secure tulit,
with an accompanying reaction of alleged enormity, ut gaudentis etiam
suspicionem praeberet tamquam occasione nata spoliandarum ture belli
opulentissimarum prouinciarum (*). The superlative effusissimo underlines
the attitude of irresponsibility displayed in the following clause by Nero’s
posthaste withdrawal in gymnasium (?). The sentence opens with a meal
reference (cenae) which of course may be the dutiful record of historical
fact. Yet the number of details on food in the whole sequence on Nero's
demise looms so large that it is to be wondered if this is not in actuality an
indirect means of reiterating comments previously made on Nero's
greed (°°). S.41 contains the fact that Nero sent a letter to the senate ; but
the proferred excuse for lack of personal attendance, excusato languore
faucium (!), in its triviality undermines any credibility the factual in-
formation may have conveyed that serious motives lay behind the despatch
of the letter, or at least an attitude of concern. Then, the subjective response
of Nero to the taunts of Vindex (a good example of the narrow limits im-
posed by the biographical method), a response once more intended to
demonstrate irresponsibility and which implicitly criticises lack of positive
(27) Note additionally the not infrequent usage of emotive vocabulary, also to damaging
effect: s.40.1. perpessus ; 5.40.4, excanduit ; 5.41.1, permotus ; 5.41.2. praetrepidus ; etc.
(28) Material derived from the common source; see below, 249ff.
(29) See previous note; below, 251.
(30) Above, 157. There are fewer food references in Plutarch and Dio.
(31) See note 28 ; below. 253.
deterrent action. In s.41.2. the return of Nero from Naples to Rome, fact,
and perhaps indicative of serious moves by Nero, is offset by the ironical
anecdote of the friuolum auspicium and the demonstration of an attitude
demeaning to imperial dignitas : ad eam speciem exiluit gaudio caelumque
adorauit. Again, the final sentence contains a note of censure when it is
stated that Nero, once in Rome, consulted neither the senate nor people ?),
and the session of the consilium is reduced to absurdity by the story of the
water-organ. It is apparent, however, that Suetonius was aware of serious
business beforehand (33). Examples of this sort could be continued but it
should be sufficiently clear that Suetonius' purpose is to dwell on the
ignominy of Nero throughout, and that the materials available to him are
manipulated to this intent. The objection that Suetonius is presenting a
valid portrayal of Nero's behaviour in the final crisis, taken from his
authorities and confirmed especially by parallels from Dio, is not cogent
The parallels show only that by the time Suetonius composed his work a
tradition of Neronian irresponsibility had become established, not that those
attitudes and reactions are historically valid. The consistency of Suetonius"
presentation is enough to dispel doubts that he may not have had precon-
ceived ideas about Nero's personality (34). Detachment and impartiality were
not his interests.
Ss.40-50 contain what is generally acknowledged to be the most suc-
cessful piece of narrative composition in Suetonius, the exitus of Nero
proper (ss.47.3ff) C9), but the high literary value of this portion of the
biography needs cautious historical treatment.
General Bibliography : for discussion of the events which form the
background to Nero's fall, the following works should be particularly con-
sulted : P. A. Brunt, The Revolt of Vindex and the Fall of Nero in Latomus
18 (1959), 531ff; J. B. Hainsworth, Verginius and Vindex in Historia 11
(1962), 86ff ; C. M. Kraay, The Coinage of Vindex and Galba, A. D. 68,
and the Continuity of the Principate in Num. Chron.® 9 (1949), 129ff; H.
Mattingly, Verginius at Lugdunum? in Num. Chron.® 14 (1954), 32(T ; D.
C. A. Shotter, Tacitus and Verginius Rufus in CQ 17 (1967), 370ff. See
also Henderson, 395ff; Hohl, 390ff; Momigliano, 757ff; Warmington,
155ff ; Cizek, 225ff.
(32) Perhaps there was no particular need to; see below, 253f.
(33) See below, 254.
(34) Cf. above, I4ff.
(35) See, for example, TowNnenp, in Latin Biography. 93.
40.1 Talem principem

See above, 242.
paulo minus quattuordecim annos

From the date of Nero's accession, 13th October, 54 (above, 62) until
his death on 9th or I 1th June, 68 (below, 292) is a span of thirteen years
and almost eight months; cf. Zonar. 11.13.43, 1-6D ; Dio 63.29.3;
Joann. Ant. fr. 92M v. 70-74 ; W. F. Snyder, Kiio, 33 (1940), 39ff ; esp.
47.
initium facientibus Gallis duce lulio Vindice, qui tum eam prouinciam pro
praetore optinebat
Gallis is a difficult reading since eam prouinciam in the following clause
is strictly ungrammatical. Syme, Tacitus, 456 n.3, tentatively suggests ac-
ceptance of Bentley’s Galliis, which allows eam prouinciam (sc. Galliarum)
to make better sense. but creates the false impression that Vindex was sole
legate of all the Gauls.
Support for the rebellion of Vindex did not come from the whole of Tres
Galliae. The following tribes may safely be identified as Gallic insurgents :
the Sequani from Belgica ; Tac. Hist. 1.51 ; Plin. NH 4.106 ; the Aedui
from Lugdunensis ; Tac. Hist. 1.51 ; 4.17 ; Plin. NH 4.107 ; the Arverni
from Aquitania ; Tac. Hist. 1.51 ; Plin. NH 4.109. In addition, the Nar-
bonensian city of Vienna was pro-Vindex ; Tac. Hist. 1.65 ; cf. C. Jullian,
Histoire de la Gaule (1929), IV 180 n.5. If Pliny's categorisation of the
tribes is correct then the rebels were represented in all three divisions of
Comata, but in opposition were at least the Treveri and Lingones from
Belgica ; Tac. Hist. 4.69 ; cf. 4.17 ; Plin. NH 4.106, together with the city
of Lugdunum itself; Tac. Hist. 1.51 ; 65 ; cf. Jullian, op. cit. 181. Brunt,
art. cit., 532 n.2, after accepting the tribal distribution of Pliny and Tacitus,
though omitting to include the Aedui as supporters of Vindex, oddly con-
cludes that Belgica was not affected by the rebellion. The tribes which
remained quiescent were those nearest the Rhine armies ; Hainsworth, art.
cit., 91. Thus the remark of Suetonius, facientibus Gallis, is obscure,
though this may not have been a problem for contemporary readers ; see
above, 240.
Suetonius' phraseology, however, implies correctly that Vindex was not
the single instigating force behind the rebellion. Motives of personal am-
bition, that is, on Vindex' part (Dio 63.23) were not as important as the
fact that Vindex was the organiser of Gallic discontent ; cf. Zonar.
11.13.41, 10-12D ; Dio 63.22.2-6. Other Gallic duces existed whose aid
Vindex may have solicited, Asiaticus et Flauus et Rufinus, Tac. Hist. 2.94 ;
cf. Jos. BJ 4.440, rots duvaroics tiv éxtywpiwv. Collaboration between Vin-
dex and certain anonymous exiled senators is recorded at Joann. Antioch.
fr. 91M, v.6-10; cf. Brunt, art. cit., 532.
Little is known about the early life and career of C. lulius Vindex. Ac-
cording to Dio 63.22.1? he was a descendant of an Aquitanian royal house,
citizenship having been probably bestowed on his family in the time of
Caesar ; RE s.v. lulius" no. 534 ; P/R? 1 628. His father may have been
one of the Gauls admitted to the senate under Claudius in 48 ; cf. Dio lc. ;
Hainsworth, art. cit., 88; Syme, Ten Studies in Tacitus (1970), 27 n.1.
The Tres Galliae were governed by imperial legates of praetorian rank, with
which Suetonius’ pro praetore is thus in accordance, and indeed it is a
distinct improvement on the notices at Plut. Galba 4.2 and Dio ic. ; cf.
Jullian, op. cit., 417. It is usually assumed that Vindex was legate of
Lugdunensis, which is the more likely view though conclusive evidence is
lacking. Jullian, op. cít., 179 n.9. argued that Aeduan support for Vindex
and the fidelity shown him by the legate of Aquitania proved this, and
Brunt, art. cit., 532 n.2, accepts Lugdunensis on the ground that Belgica
was not included in the course of the revolt. Certainly Aquitania must be
discounted as a possiblity for Vindex' command ; cf. Suet. Galba 9.2, Car-
thagine noua conuentum agens tumultuari | Gallias comperit legato
Aquitaniae auxilia implorante. This is normally interpreted to mean that the
governor of Aquitania requested aid against the rebel Vindex. But it might
equally well mean that aid was sought in support of Vindex, the complete
reverse, the continuation of Suet. Galba 9.2 then corroborating that line of
thought and expression. This then would argue for the involvement of
Aquitania in the rebellion, as seen in part above. This view also makes
sense of the plurals Ga/lias and Galliarum in s.40.4. However, in the im-
mediate context it is the attested tenure of the legateship of Aquitania which
is the more important point. [t was observed above that Belgic elements also
participated in the revolt so perhaps Belgica should not altogether be
dismissed as a possibility for Vindex' province. Valerius Asiaticus is known
to have been governor in 69, and although probably one of the Gallic
ringleaders, was not necessarily in office in the spring of 68 ; Tac. Hist.
1.59; 2.94 ; RE s.v. ‘Valerius’ no. 107 ; PIR! V 26. That Aeduan support
for Vindex is unimportant here follows from the consideration that
Lugdunum itself was hostile to him. This fact, together with the observation
that Vindex included Vienne in his sphere, has led to the proposal that he
may have been proconsul of Narbonensis ; Sherwin-White, Pliny, 366.

This, however, cannot be substantiated. Tacitus speaks of Vindex' com-
mand as an inermis prouincia, Hist. 1.16, which may refer only to the ab-
sence of legions in the Tres Galliae, but if pressed to include the garrison
cohort at Lugdunum as well, this might mean that Belgica again could come
into the reckoning as Vindex' province.
40.2-3
In association with the cataloguing of omens and portents at s.46, in-
cluded now are contrasting predictions of Nero's fate which, tangentially
compiled from associations with destituit in s.40.1 (cf. s.40.2, destitueretur,
destituto) immediately interrupt the basic narrative account which is
resumed at s.40.4.
40.2 Praedictum a mathematicis Neroni olim erat fore ut quandoque desti-

tueretur
Predictions in Suetonius may appear in conjunction with portents, cf.
Calig. 57.2 ; Domit. 15.3, but remain essentially distinct from them; cf.
Tib. 14.1, magna nec incerta spe futurorum, quam et ostentis et praedic-
tionibus.. conceperat. For the all-pervasive influence of astrological predic-
tions on the educated sections of Roman society, see R. MacMullen,
Enemies of the Roman Order (1967), 137, 141. Suetonius may well himself
have believed that unnatural signs were valid indications of the future. It is
a commonplace to speak of the superstitious element in his personality (cf.
Plin. Epp. 1.18), though this is not to be unduly emphasised ; his attitude,
after all, may not have been untypical ; cf. A. Macé, Essai sur Suétone
(1900), 59, 62. Yet there is a more objective reason for the inclusion of the
predictions — the provision of diverting, anecdotal material, eminently
suitable for the entertainment purposes of biography ; cf. esp. Calig. 19.3.
The indications are that Nero paid serious attention to astrology. His ac-
cession was delayed for astrological reasons (though Nero himself may not
have been directly involved here) ; s.8 ; Tac. Ann. 12.68 ; and the influence
of Balbillus was considerable ; s.36. Cf. MacMullen, op. cir, 141, and
s.34.4 for Nero's fear of the unnatural. Some confirmation of the pre-
dictions here seems to come from a late tenth-century source where an ex-
pulsion of astrologers from Rome is attributed to Nero, followed by fore-
casts of his death on the day of expulsion ; Cat. Cod. Astrol. VIII 4, 100.
The source is of dubious value, however, and was probably influenced by
the Vitellian expulsion of 69 (Suet. Vitel. 14.4); cf. F. H. Cramer,

Astrology in Roman Politics and Law (1954), 242.
mathematicis
A vague plural. Occasionally Suetonius is more precise and supplies the
astrologers’ names ; cf. Tib. 14.2 ; Domit. 15.3. Identification here has been
attempted with Balbillus, but there is no firm evidence for such a view ; F.
Cumont, Cat. Cod. Astrol. Graec. VIII 4, 233 ; cf. Cramer, op. cit., 131 ;
above, 219f.
unde illa uox eius celeberrima : <6 vé£ywov hyds dvatpé—pet, quo maiore scili-
cet uenia meditaretur citharoedicam artem, principi sibi gratam, priuato ne-
cessariam
Cf. Dio 63.27.2 for a strong parallel ; Heinz, Das Bild, 62, for the less
dispassionate style of Dio. The contexts of the quotations differ. Dio places
his at a later stage of his account than Suetonius and associates it with
Nero's total abandonment and plans for revenge and flight ; cf. ss.47.2-3.
Townend, Hermes 88 (1960), 104, believes that each author has used the
common material at the most opportune juncture of his narrative, but
perhaps the degree of dislocation by Suetonius is greater if for the purpose
of the exemplary technique he has transposed material from the common
source which Dio follows more closely.
The demands of the technique are a safer indication of the change in
authorities followed between s.40.1 and ss.40.2-3 than relying simply on
the use of the pluperfect tense in the early stages of s.40.2 as opposed to the
perfect of the preceding section ; contra, Townend, art. cit., 108. How else
would the author express the idea of time antecedent to that of s.40.1 when
it is clear that the predictions antedate the outbreak of the rebellion?
The association of the quotation in the text with an aesthetic background
is instructive for Nero's last words ; see below, 277. For Nero as artist see
above, 121ff.
spoponderant tamen quidam destituto Orientis dominationem

Spondere is particularly used with mathematici by Suetonius ; cf., for
example, Otho 4.1 ; Vesp. 14. In accordance with the cataloguing style,
quidam and the repetition of the verb destituere hint at a source change
from the previous sentence. For Nero and the East see below, 294f.
regnum Hierosolymorum
Compare the popular Messianic prophecies as recorded for example at
Suet. Vesp. 4.5 and Orac. Sibyll. 3.46ff, 652ff, which may well have been
applied to Nero by certain Jewish elements ; E. M. Sanford, Nero and the
East in HSCPh 48 (1937), 75ff; 84f. Cf. below, 294f.
Britannia Armeniaque amissa ac rursus utraque recepta

See above, 236f.
fatalibus malis
Cf. above, 235f on Nero's felicitas.
40.3 ut uero consulto Delphis Apolline

The only satisfactory time in which to place this consultation is during
Nero's Hellenic tour, when his presence at Delphi is attested ; Dio 63.14.2.
Schumann, 71, 73, proposed April-May 67 as the exact time of the visit,
but two attendances are possible ; see Latomus 37 (1978). Nero is said to
have had high regard for Delphi, but that did not prevent him from remov-
ing art works for the Domus Aurea, nor from confiscating Delphic territory
for veterans ; Dio /.c. ; Dio Chrysos. Orat. 31.148 ; Pausan. 10.7.1. He did.
however, reward the oracle in return for favourable responses ; Dio /.c. The
alleged attempt to abolish the oracle may be apocryphal and even the
present response could be a post-Neronian fabrication ; Dio /.c. ; ps.-Luc.
Nero 10 ; H. W. Parke, D. E. W. Wormell, The Delphic Oracle (1956), 1
283.
septuagensimum ac tertium annum cauendum sibi audiuit, quasi eo demum

obiturus, ac nihil coniectans de aetate Galbae
This text supports Plut. Ga/ba 8 and Eutrop. 7.16 for A.D. 6 as the year
of Galba's birth, but there is equally strong, and irreconciliable evidence for
the year before ; cf. P/R' S 723 ; RE s.v. Sulpicius (Galba)' no. 63 ; G. W.
Mooney, C. Suetoni Tranquilli De Vita Caesarum Libri VII-VII (1930),
258. Of immense prestige and sull pursuing a career of distinction, Galba
was now in the seventh year of his governorship of Tarraconensis ; Plut.
Galba 3 ; Suet. Galba 8 ; Tac. Hist. 1.49 ; Dio 63.23. For the belief that
Galba's age made him harmless see Plut. Galba 3.3.
fiducia
Fiducia and the representation of Nero as artifex are considered the two
principal themes of ss.40-50 by W. Steidle, Sueton und die antike Biogra-

phie (1951), 87ff.
perpetuam singularemque concepit felicitatem

Felicitas was essential for a successful general ; Weinstock, DJ 113, with
Cic. De Imp. Cn. Pomp. 28. But it was not advertised on the coinage during
the reign of Nero. For a dedication to Nero's Tyche see JHS 62 (1942), 17
(= Smallwood, Documents, no. 420).
naufragio
This perhaps refers to Nero's return voyage from Greece at the end of 67;
see Latomus 37 (1978). Dio, 63.19.2, records a popular but vain belief
that Nero had perished on that journey. For a possible echo of Nero’s
escape see GRBS 16 (1975), 305ff.
40.4 Neapoli de motu Galliarum cognouit die ipso quo matrem occiderat
The context should not be after the return from Greece as might be sup-
posed. The break in constructional technique means also a chronological
break. Nero left Greece about the beginning of December, 67 and disem-
barked at Puteoli after a crossing lasting some fourteen days. Visits to An-
tium and Albanum then followed before arrival in Rome no later than 31st
December. See Latomus 37 (1978). The present text, however, refers to
March, 68 ; cf. above, 203. No record of Nero's activities during the in-
terval January-March remains until the outbreak of Vindex' rebellion.
The date of the outbreak cannot be known for certain, but can at least be
estimated. It will have preceded the Quinquatrus, strictly 19th March, by at
least the amount of time required for the news to travel from Gaul to
Naples ; (for the Quinquatrus, above, 203). A useful comparison for this is
found in an episode of 69, when news of the disaffection of two legions in
Upper Germany was carried to Rome; Tac. Hist. 1.12-18 ; 55-57. For an
eight day journey from Moguntiacum to Rome via Durocortum, Lugdunum,
Vienna, and Milan, A. M. Ramsay, JRS 15 (1925), 65, determined an
average speed of 160 mp a day for the courrier service. More recently, K.
Wellesley suggests 125 mp a day for the same journey, with a slight
variation in the route taken ; JRS 57 (1967), 27 n.15. What seems to have
been the average speed for the cursus publicus, 50 mp a day, will not do
here at all ; cf. H.-G. Pflaum, Essai sur le cursus publicus, Mémoires de
l'Académie des [nscriptions et Belles-Lettres 14 (1940), 386 following Ram-
say, art. cit., 73. The irregular statistics may be applied to the present cir-
cumstances, although the lack of certainty about Vindex' province (above,

2441) means that the location of the official origin of the revolt is
unknown. However, either Lugdunum or Durocortum seems the most likely
site for the assembly of the Gauls before which Vindex delivered his
rebellion address (Dio 63.22.2). For the route taken two possibilities exist :
from the point of departure across the Alps (Graian rather than Cottian),
through northern Italy to Naples ; alternatively, through Narbonensis to
Arelate and by sea to Ostia or even direct to Naples ; cf. J. Rougé, Recher-
ches sur l'organisation du commerce maritime en Méditerranée sous l'empire
romain (1968), 94f. Against the second alternative may be set the con-
sideration that the season would not have encouraged a sea-voyage ; cf.
Rougé. op. cit., 53. Thus, using the distances supplied by the /tinn. Ant. et
Burg.. a period of seven to eight and a half days emerges for the journey
from Lugdunum to Naples and seven and a half to nine and a half days for
the (less likely) journey from Durocortum to Naples. This places the Gallic
assembly and official commencement of the rebellion in the period 9th- 12th
March. Further, it then seems probable that preparations for the rebellion
stretched well back into the preceding month, if not even earlier, for it is
stated that Vindex contacted provincial governors before the rebellion in an
attempt to muster support, and that Nero himself was informed of this by
the governors themselves ; Plut. Ga/b. 4.2. The general slowness of ancient
communications would of necessity demand several weeks for such
proceedings, and in addition the local organisation within Comata would
fall within such an interval. This idea of pre-rebellion preparation has
generally been overlooked by scholars, but the above remarks substantiate
Brunt's brief comment (art. cit, 532) that preparation began well ahead of
the official outbreak of trouble. It can be added finally that Nero received
the first despatches during the daytime, since further news arrived in the
evening ; see below, 251, cf. Dio 63.26.1. And for Naples, above, 124f.
adeoque lente ac secure tulit ut gaudentis etiam suspicionem praeberet

tamquam occasione nata spoliandarum iure belli opulentissimarum prouin-
ciarum
Cf. Dio 63.26.3 ; Plut. Galba 5.3 ; Heinz, Das Bild, 61. This attitude of
inactivity was perhaps not as unreasonable as Suetonius' text suggests. The
absence of legions in Gaul may have made the initial threat appear of
minimal significance to Nero who had probably already taken steps to
remove Galba ; cf. Brunt, art. cít., 542. The insurgence led in 21 by Florus
and Sacrovir had been summarily handled, Tac. Ann. 3.40-47, and a similar
outcome may have been expected on this occasion. Tiberius, like Nero, in-
curred popular reproaches for lack of swift action, Tac. Ann. 3.41 ; 44,
though eventually his policy was justified. See further below, 254ff.
statimque in gymnasium progressus certantis athletas effusissimo studio

spectauit
Cf. Dio 63.26.1 ; Heinz, Das Bild, 61.
cenae
For food references in ss.40-50 note ss.42.2 ; 43.2 ; 47.1 ; see above,
242. For the time of day at which the cena was taken, the ninth or tenth
hour, before darkness, cf. Plin. Epp. 3.5.13; 9.36.4 with Sherwin-White,
Pliny, ad il. The time thus fixes the arrival of the second batch of
messages ; cf. above, 250.
excanduit
See above, 242 n.27.
denique per octo continuos dies non rescribere cuiquam, non mandare quid
aut praecipere conatus rem silentio oblit[t] erauit
There is no need to explain this passage with any notion to the effect that
Suetonius did not know of any consiliar activity in this interval which could
be reported (Hainsworth, art. cir., 89 n.20), otherwise how account for the
fact that he did know of the later session of the consilium recorded in
s$.41.2? Nor should the measures attributed to Nero in s.43.1 be regarded
as contemporaneous with s.40.4 in an attempt to bridge the gap. On
stylistic grounds it is clear that the two latter sections derive from separate
sources, which Hainsworth does not recognise (cf. his page 88), sources
which in fact are contradictory. Yet the former, from the basic narrative
material, seems to be the more reliable (below, 258ff) so that the period of
eight days' inactivity need not be seriously doubted. The statement is in ac-
cordance with the previous sentence. It suggests that Nero did not expect
the revolt to be particularly dangerous. Either he had already attempted to
forestall the rebellion through the removal of Galba (below, 254fD, or else
he may simply have expected the Rhine armies to move against Vindex
without the receipt of special instructions to do so.
The text should not mean that all administration by the emperor ceased,
but that no directives were issued à propos of the rebellion. It is adduced by
F. Millar, JRS 57 (1967), 18, as negative evidence to support the con-
tention that much of the routine business of administration was handled by

the emperor himself. Not simply rescripts, however, (thus Millar), but man-
data and praecepta also. Further, the passage implies that under normal
conditions business could be conducted outside of Rome itself, which should
mean the presence with the emperor of a staff of assistants. The same is
probably true for the Hellenic tour. Cf. above, 142; 146.
Rescribere and mandare are technical terms, referring here no doubt to
the issuing of instructions to provincial governors. Mandata at this period
should mean instructions to imperial legates ; cf. Sherwin-White, Pliny,
547f ; 589ff ; Millar, JRS 56 (1966), 157f. Praecepta are more difficult to
define, though here there may be a sense of military instructions ; cf. Suet.
Calig. 47 ; s.49.3; Tib. 18.2; Plin. Epp. 10.21.1 ; Tac. Agric. 13.2.
With calculations from 19th March, the course of events now is taken to
27th March from the present information.
41.1 edictis tandem Vindicis contumeliosis et frequentibus

Provincial governors might issue edicts for any special circumstances, in
contrast to the edict issued when the provincial tenure began in which the
terms of the new administration were defined ; Jolowicz, Historical In-
troduction’, 358f.
senatum epistula in ultionem sui reique publicae adhortatus est

Cf. Dio 63.26.1 ; Heinz, Das Bild, 62. As with the consilium notice in
s.41.1, Suetonius adds a sober detail to a frivolous item (below). This may
imply a greater scrutiny of the common material by Suetonius than Dio.
The letter to the senate represents an appeal for support in the immediate
situation rather than for senatorial handling of the crisis itself. The latter is
excluded since the provinces in which disaffection lay were all imperial
areas of jurisdiction. What was important was to maintain some sort of
authority in the capital once the anticipated outcome of the original events
did not transpire. The letter may have been intended as a gesture of this
sort. If Nero's earlier (non-) activity is justifiable (above, 251), at least a
reasonable pattern of behaviour can be deduced from the skeletal account of
sober details in Suetonius' narrative. Once the initial expectations were not
realised, Nero responded with the present action to the developed situation.
The senate might satisfy the demand for vengeance by declaring the in-
surgents public enemies ; cf. Plut. Galba 5.4 ; or else Nero might have
demanded maiestas trials for the insurgents.
excusato languore faucium

Cf. Dio 63.26.1 ; Heinz, Das Bild, 61f ; above, 242.
nihil autem aeque doluit, quam ut malum se citharoedum increpitum ac pro

Nerone Ahenobarbum appellatum
If these taunts are genuinely representative of Vindex' propaganda (cf.
Brunt, art. cit., $34), the citharoedus charge might reflect western resent-
ment of Nero's philhellenism, especially after the Hellenic tour. The ef-
fectiveness of the Ahenobarbus reproach is illustrated by the earlier ex-
change with Britannicus ; above, 57. It can be noted that these insults tend
to substantiate the accuracy of Vindex' speech at Dio 63.22.3ff, despite the
doubts of Syme, 7acitus, 463 n.1.
et nomen quidem gentile, quod sibi per contumeliam exprobraretur

Cf. Brunt, art. cir., 534.
cetera conuicia, ut falsa, non alio argumento refellebat

Despite the tendentiousness of the remainder of this sentence the fact is
clear here that Nero responded to Vindex with propaganda of his own,
again, therefore. indicative of some positive action on his part; cf. above,
252.
41.2 sed urgentibus aliis super alios nuntiis Romam praetrepidus rediit
The implication behind the method of presentation is that Nero's return
to Rome (unattested elsewhere) followed soon after the sending of the letter
to the senate (above, 252). The last few days in March appear to be the
most reasonable time for the date of this event. Brunt, art. cit., 540, omits
to mention the departure from Naples or to emphasise fully the lapse of
time beforehand from receipt of the first news of the rebellion. This interval
has some significance. for it helps to explain why Nero's strategy was in-
sufficient to control the situation. By underestimating the demands of the
crisis and remaining in Naples he permitted elements in the capital to
secede, when they might otherwise have remained loyal. The initiative was
lost, though not necessarily because of apathy ; Sutherland, Coinage, 172.
friuolo auspicio
See above, 243.
ac ne tunc quidem aut senatu aut populo coram appellato

Unwarranted censure is implicit in this text. The crisis was primarily an
'imperial' concern (above, 252), and the allegiance of the senate might have
already been forfeited because of Nero's dalliance in Naples. Consultation
of senate and people was hardly likely to be anything more than ineffectual.
quosdam e primoribus uiris domum euocauit transactaque raptim consultatio-

ne reliquam diei partem per organa « h2» ydraulica noui et ignoti generis
circumduxit
Cf. Dio 63.26.4, with the variation that the meeting took place at night.
Dio stresses the hasty summoning of the consilium, whereas Suetonius ap-
plies this idea to the consultatio itself. But Dio does not know of the serious
deliberation which occurred before the episode with the organ, or else
chooses to ignore it ; cf. J. A. Crook, Consilium Principis (1955), 29 n.2.
This parody of the consiliar meeting has been regarded as evidence for the
"reality and regularity" of imperial consilia ; Crook, Lc. ; yet the present
session must surely have been an emergency session in view of the general
circumstances. The story of the water-organ is illustrative of Nero's
"Künstlermanie" in Suetonius' description, and the apparent growing in-
difference to the political situation is no more than a literary represen-
tation ; Heinz, Das Bild, 62. But in real terms Suetonius again gives a hint
of serious business on Nero's part, which further vitiates the overall por-
trayal of his irresponsibility.
42.1 Postquam deinde etiam Galbam et Hispanias desciuisse cognouit,

conlapsus animoque male facto diu sine uoce et prope intermortuus
iacuit
The order of the narrative means that receipt of this news occurred after
Nero's arrival in Rome, that is, at the very end of March at the earliest
(above, 253). This is confirmed by Dio's independent report on the age and
length of reign of Galba. 64.6.5?, which gives 3rd April as the date of
Galba's renunciation of allegiance to Nero; cf. RE s.v., 'Sulpicius (Galba)
col. 778 ; Snyder, art. cit., 47, for the inclusive counting in Dio. Brunt, art.
cit., 535, offers 6th April, with no explanation. The news may have been
carried by land or sea, though at this stage the latter is perhaps more likely.
Three and a half to five days were needed for the voyage ; L. Casson, Speed
under Sail of Ancient Ships in TAPA 82 (1951), 136(f ; 146. Thus a date of
about 7th/8th April is fixed for Nero's knowledge of Galba's official in-
surrection.
lt is clear from the histrionic reaction of Nero shown by Suetonius here
that the news of Galba's defection marked a turning-point in the history of
the rebellion, an explanation for which, coming a full month virtually after
Vindex' abandonment of loyalty (above, 249f), must be sought, and some
account given for the period of apparent inertia recorded at s.40.4. After the
conspiracies of Vinicianus and Piso (above, 220ff) and the executions of the
generals during the Hellenic tour, it is impossible to believe that Nero sat
idly by when the initial rumours of Vindex' intentions first reached him,
even though the danger may have appeared only slight (above, 2500). There
is no evidence that Nero had detached himself from the normal processes of
administration and government and any idea of absolute inactivity does not
make sense once personal safety was threatened. For the expectation of nor-
mal conditions at this time see Jos. Vita 408-409.
Plut. Galba 4.2 mentions alleged approaches by letter to Galba from
Vindex before the official outbreak of the rebellion and continues that
Galba's attitude was equivocal — no immediate attachment to Vindex, but
no message to Nero of Vindex’ treachery. Plut. Galba 4.3 is categorical that
Vindex wrote to Galba once the revolt was under way and that Galba was
invited to lead it; this information is found also at Suet. Galba 9.2,
superuenerunt et Vindicis litterae hortantis, ut humano generi assertorem
ducemque se accommodaret. |n a passage which there seems little reason to
doubt Suetonius further makes it plain that at that time Galba was aware of
developments in Vindex' province from a communication from the legate of
Aquitania. Galba acted immediately ; that is, some time before 3rd April,
partly because he had intercepted despatches from Nero to the procurators
of his own province which gave orders for his own assassination ; cf. Aur.
Vict. De Caes. 5.15. Three or four days at least would be needed for the
passage of the second Vindex — Galba communication, that is, after the
date of the official outbreak of rebellion ; but at least three to five and a half
days before then Nero had issued the order for Galba's death, probably,
therefore, before Vindex' announcement of rebellion. The cause of this may
well have been Galba's failure to inform Nero of the insurrectionist in-
tentions of Vindex at the outset ; Nero may have expected Galba to secede
unless some precaution were taken. It appears plausible, therefore, that Nero
relied, as seemed appropriate, on the continued loyalty of the governors
who had reported the plans of Vindex and that he attempted to deprive
Vindex of a prestigious figurehead for the revolt, as also of military support,
through the expedient murder of Galba. With no suspicions concerning
Verginius Rufus at this stage, and knowing that Vindex had no legions of
his own, Nero might have hoped to quash the trouble before it assumed
organised military form. The only troops available in Spain were those of
Galba himself, and the closest force elsewhere that of the Rhine.
Nero may have known of the failure of the attempt on Galba's life before
the approximate date 7th/8th April. Indeed, that information may have
been the reason behind the letter to the senate and the decision to return to
Rome. More positive action was obligatory. But the sure knowledge that in
April Galba had defected allowed Vindex the support needed if the revolt
were to begin to succeed, and it meant in addition that Verginius had not
crushed Vindex by that time. As a consequence, his fidelity was in question.
Dio, 63.27.1, couples news of Verginius’ defection with that of Galba.
Hence the turning-point, and Nero's apparently desperate measures. Aiso,
the complaisance of Nero in s.40.4 becomes explicable. There was no need
for panic when the news of Vindex’ disloyalty became known officially be-
cause a remedy had already been set in motion, though its outcome not yet
known. Cf. Hainsworth, art. cit., 90, recognising the order of events with
regard to the Vindex-Galba correspondence and the assassination attempt,
but underestimating the latter.
In the context of the chronological framework thus far posited the earlier
of Vindex’ solicitations of Galba is likely to have fallen in the second half
of February. Time before the official outbreak has to be allowed not only for
the exchange of letters between Vindex and Galba, but also for letters from
Vindex to governors of more distant provinces and for the governors’
reports to reach Nero; Plut. Galba 4.2. Thus a lengthy period of
preparation is suggested ; cf. above, 250. The second batch of despatches to
Galba belongs according to Brunt, art. cit., 535, to "before the end of
March" ; but dating from the proposed 9th- 12th March, the middle of the
month becomes a more accurate estimate.
Suetonius is not precise on the question of the involvement in the
rebellion movement of the other Spanish provinces. M. Salvius Otho, the
governor of Lusitania, is said to have connived initially with Galba's plans ;
Suet. Otho 5.1. The quaestor of Baetica, A. Caecina Alienus, also adhered ;
Tac. Hist. 1.53. But probably not Obultronius Sabinus, the likely proconsul
of Baetica at this period, nor his probable legate, L. Cornelius Marcellus.
Both were put to death in Spain by Galba later in 68, which must mean that
they had remained loyal to Nero ; Tac. Hist. 1.37 ; Syme, AJP 58 (1937),
9f; G. Alfoldy, Fasti Hispanienses (1969), 139; 155ff; 184.
For the common material on Nero's subjective response to the news
about Galba, cf. Dio /.c. ;: Heinz, Das Bild, 63f ; and for the later use of
Suetonius himself as source material, cf. Oros. 7.7.13. Although a literary
contrivance, the histrionics of Nero are perhaps also an exaggerated version
of Nero's reaction to the collapse of his plans.
nutriculae
See below, 280.
42.2 nec eo setius quicquam ex consuetudine luxus atque desidiae omisit

uel inminuit
A similar remark appears and is developed at Dio 63.26.3f. The context
of the material varies between the two authors. Dio places his material
before the news of Galba's defection ; cf. above, 254ff. For Suetonius’ views
of Nero's personality see above, 14ff.
quin immo, cum prosperi quiddam ex prouinciis nuntiatum esset

This news must be subsequent to that of s.42.1 (above, 254ff). Plut.
Galba 6.1 alleges that after the defection of Galba many provincial gover-
nors followed the example of secession, actions which must successively
postdate 3rd April (above, 254), and which can hardly have been welcome
to Nero. The only encouraging news that Nero could have received is that
of the death of Vindex at the battle of Vesontio. It does not follow,
however, that Verginius behaviour is to be construed as loyalist, for the
prevailing tradition assigns Vesontio to mischance rather than to the direc-
tion of Verginius ; Dio 63.24.3 ; Plut. Galba 6.3. Also, reports of the offer
of the Principate to Verginius by his troops are given before as well as after
the battle ; Plut. Galba 6.2-3 ; cf. Dio 63.25.1. This can have left Nero un-
der no illusions about the reliability of Verginius. Moreover, the temporis-
ing attitude of Verginius during the first month of the rebellion is strongly
in his disfavour ; above, 255. Therefore, while the news of Vindex' death
cannot have been anything but welcome for Nero, if for no more than an
exercise in optimistic propaganda, the expedition of s.43.2 was nonetheless
demanded by Verginius! recalcitrance and the continued disaffection of
Galba.
It follows then on this evidence that in all likelihood Vesontio belongs to
a date in April. Brunt's suggestion, art. cit., 540f, of a date "as early as the
beginning of May" cannot be ruled out on the evidence of the order of
events in Suetonius. The next main piece of the basic narrative, s.47.1,
belongs to early June at the latest so that there remains obviously a long
spell after early April in which the course of events can only imperfectly be
visualised. But Brunt's view is only speculative, and the preference of
Kraay, art. cit., 129 n.5, for a very late date, early June, does not take ac-
count of the wavering attitude of Verginius Rufus nor permits Galba suf-
ficient time to withdraw to Clunia by 16th June ; Plut. Galba 6.4-7.1 ; cf.
Chilver, JRS 47 (1957), 32 n.40, who, however, still prefers a latish date
on the ground that Nero’s death swiftly followed the battle. This is un-
necessary, though, for Nero’s final despair can be attributed to other fac-
tors ; see below, 271. Hainsworth, art. cit., 86, also assumes late May-early
June for the battle ; but Mattingly, art. cit., 33ff, emphasising that the Ger-
man legions could be expected to have mobilised rapidly on the precedent of
A.D. 21, is more compelling in favour of an early date (though he still od-
dly settles for late May). An interval has to be allowed Vindex for the
organisation of his supporters, but this must have been under way since the
initial stages of the revolt.
abundantissimam cenam
See above, 242.
43.1-2
The second main interruption of the narrative now occurs. The more ex-
tended design of s.43.2 most likely represents the resumption of the
narrative, for fact and progression replace relatively insubstantial material.
Chronological relationship between the two sections is thus doubtful.
43.1 Initio statim tumultus multa et inmania, uerum non abhorrentia a

natura sua creditur destinasse
Literally interpreted this passage would mean that the alleged enormities
took place on receipt of the news of the rebellion at the time of the
Quinquatrus of 68 (above, 249f), or possibly even earlier when the first
reports from the provincial governors began to arrive ; Plut. Galba 4.2. But
this is inconsistent with the recorded period of inactivity in s.40.4, which
there is every reason to accept in essence (above, 251f). The point is not
noticed by Hainsworth, art. cit., 89. Inmania and natura sua show the ten-
dentiousness of the statement. What follows is made up of calumnies direc-
ted against Nero either during or after the rebellion, but in either case not to
be treated as serious historical evidence. The rumours represent what Nero
was thought to be capable of doing, not what he actually did. The outra-
geousness of the proposals readily shows this.
For a summary of the Suetonian material, cf. Oros. 7.7.13, cumque in-
credibilia perturbandae, immo subruendae reipublicae mala moliretur ...
successores percussoresque summittere exercitus et prouincias regentibus,

quasi conspiratis idemque et unum sentientibus
3?
Despite the letters of Vindex to provincial governors who later reportedly

took part in the rebellion after initial reluctance (Plut. Galba 4.2), evidence
of widescale hostility to Nero from the governors at the outset of the revolt
is not strong.
Ti. Iulius Alexander, prefect of Egypt, may possibly have supported the
insurrection. The edict issued by him on 6th July, 68 refers to Galba as
avtoxpatwp. Communications problems make it virtually impossible for
Alexander to have been informed of Galba's imperial position unless before
the death of Nero, which suggests negotiations well before that time
perhaps guaranteeing Alexander continuation of his Egyptian command if
the resources of Egypt were secured for Galba's cause; see G. Chalon,
L'Edit de Tiberius Iulius Alexander (1964), 43ff ; PIR? | 139. For his ad-
herence to Corbulo, Syme, Tacitus, 790.
Although the behaviour of the legate of Upper Germany is notoriously
difficult to evaluate, the modern consensus, that Verginius Rufus’ attitude
was indecisive and incipiently disloyal (Brunt, art. cit., 538 ; Hainsworth,
art. cit., 90) is preferable to theories of allegiance to Nero in the early
stages of the revolt ; cf. Kraay, art. cit., 144f ; Mattingly, art. cit., 34, and
especially Shotter, art. cit., 370ff.
Fonteius Capito, the legate of Lower Germany, was put to death by
Galba after Nero's death, ostensibly on the ground of seditious intentions:
Tac. Hist. 1.7 ; Suet. Galba 11 ; Plut. Galba 15.2. This would seem to
suggest support of Nero on Capito's part. Cf. Chilver, art. cit., 32 ; PIR? F
467, 468 ; E. Ritterling, Fasti des róm. Deutschland unter dem Prinzipat
(1932), 53f.
The governor of Britain from 63-69, M. Trebellius Maximus, was in no
way connected with the rebellion. P/R' T 239 ; RE s.v. ‘Trebellius’ no. 13 ;
A. R. Birley, Epigraphische Studien 4 (1967), 66.
Nothing of disaffection is heard from the Balkan governors. Pompeius
Silvanus was in charge of Dalmatia, P/R! P 495 ; J. J. Wilkes, Dalmatia
(1969), App. II, no. 12. But whether L. Tampius Flavianus had yet been
appointed to Pannonia is unknown ; cf. Tac. Hist. 2.86 ; PIR! T 5. He may
have been appointed, however, by Galba ; Syme, Gnomon 29 (1957), 520 ;
cf. also W. Reidinger, Die Statthalter des ungeteilten Pannonien und Ober-
pannoniens (1956), 43ff. Also uncertain is the date of the appointment to
Raetia of Porcius Septimius ; he is attested there in 69 only ; Tac. Hist.
3.5; RE s.v. ‘Porcius’ no. 43.
C. Licinius Mucianus, the governor of Syria with four legions, has no
association with the rebellion, and T. Flavius Vespasianus was fully occu-
pied with the rebellion in Judaea. There are no suspicions of disloyalty.

PIR? L 216; RE s.v. ‘Licinius’ no. 116a ; Tac. Hist. 1.10 ; Suet. Vesp. 4.5-
6; Jos. BJ 4.497ff; PIR? F 398.
L. Clodius Macer, the legate of /egio HI Augusta in Africa, appears to
have led an uprising independent of that of Galba, issuing coins, perhaps
invading Sicily, and attempting to starve Rome. But the project was inef-
fectual. Macer commanded no support and was eventually put to death by
Galba. Plut. Galba 6 ; Tac. Hist. 1.7; PIR? C 1170 ; cf. Hainsworth, arr.
cit., 92f. In any case, his legionary strength was small, one legion together
with one additionally raised in Africa itself; Tac. Hist. 1.11 ; 2.97 ; RIC I,
194. See further below, 266, and AJP 93 (1972). 451ff.
As a reaction against the Pisonian conspiracy and the dangers represen-
ted by the executions of the Scribonii and Domitius Corbulo (above, 221),
Nero had filled military governorships with individuals less likely to prove
insurrectionist ; Chilver, art. cir., 32. Mucianus, Verginius Rufus, Vespa-
sian and the Balkan leaders were men of lowly origins and unlikely imperial
candidates. [n the beginning, then, only Vindex, Galba, Otho, and perhaps
Ti. Iulius Alexander were openly pro-Galba, a force which could easily be
matched in military terms by the British and Balkan forces if arrangements
were made quickly. Syme, AJP 58 (1937), 7ff, has reviewed the forces im-
mediately at Nero's disposal : /egio | /talica may still have been in Italy in
68; XIV Gemina was probably in northern Italy; Tac. Hist. 2.27,
vexillations from Illyricum had been sent for, Tac. Hist. 1.9, and in ad-
dition Nero had eight cohorts of Batavians. Given this situation and the
lack of evidence to show a majority of governors in support of Galba, the
present text appears wholly unreasonable as a serious defensive measure on
Nero’s part. [t is attributed by Brunt, art. cit., $41 n.3, to a response to
previous reports of governors' disloyalty, but at the outset these can have
been very few. The only record of an attempt on the life of a governor is
that which concerns Galba himself (above, 255), and perhaps this provides
the origin of the present passage. It may be a rhetorical exaggeration of the
source drawn on at Suet. Ga/ba 9.2 where the assassination attempt is re-
corded.
quasi
The alleged motivation provided by Suetonius will make sense only once
Nero had heard of fullscale disaffection by provincial governors as it ap-
pears from Plut. Galba 4.2. Two possibilities exist. The allegation is either
deliberately contrived by Suetonius, or a misplaced item which is really ap-
plicable in a context after Vesontio.
quidquid ubique exulum, quidquid in urbe hominum Gallicanorum esset con-

trucidare
The following persons were exiled in 65 or 66 in the aftermath of the
Pisonian conspiracy and may have still been alive in 68. No record of the
place of exile or of return remains unless otherwise stated.
P. Glitius Gallus ; exiled to Andros ; returned under Galba ; Tac. Ann.
15.71.6 ; Hist. 1.90 ; Plut. Otho 1 ; SIG? 811-2 ; PIR? G 184 ; above, 187.
Novius Priscus, perhaps the consul of 78 ; Tac. Ann. 15.71.6 ; PIR! N
147 ; RE s.v. 'Novius' no. 15. Annius Pollio ; Tac. Ann. 15.71.6 ; PIR? A
678. Verginius Flavus ; Tac. Ann. 15.71.9 ; PIR' V 283; RE s.v. ‘Flavus’
no. 29. C. Musonius Rufus, exiled to Gyaros ; he had probably returned to
Rome by 69 ; Tac. Ann 15.71.9 ; Dio 62.27.4 ; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.16 ;
PIR! M 548, RE s.v. ‘Musonius’ no. |; cf. above, 116f. Cluvidienus
Quietus, Blitius Catulinus, lulius Agrippa, Petronius Priscus, Iulius
Altinus ; all exiled to an Aegean island; Tac. Ann. 15.71.10; PIR? C
1200; B 138. 1 127; I 146; PIR' P 219; RE s.v. 'Priscus' no. 52.
Caedicia, wife of Flavius Scaevinus ; restoration is conjectured ; Tac. Ann.
15.71.11 ; PER? C 116. Caesennius Maximus, exiled to Sicily and recalled
by Vespasian ; Tac. Ann. 15.71.11 ; Mart. 7.44 ; PJR? C 172. C. Cassius
the jurist, exiled to Sardinia and recalled by Vespasian ; Tac. Ann. 16.9.2 ;
Dig. 1.2.2.51-52; PIR? C 501; above, 223f. P. Gallus, Tac. Ana.
16.12.1 ; PIR? G 66; Silia, Tac. Ann. 16.20.1 ; PIR! S 516 ; RE s.v.
'Silius' no. 29. C. Helvidius Priscus, withdrew to Apollonia and returned
under Galba ; Tac. Ann. 16.33.3 ; Schol. Juu. 5.36 ; Tac. Hist. 4.6 ; PIR?
H 59; Q. Paconius Agrippinus, exiled perhaps to Rhodes, Tac. Ann.
16.33.3 ; PIR! P 16 ; contra RE s.v. 'Paconius' no. 5 ; he probably returned
after Nero's death, P/R' /.c. L. Annaeus Cornutus, the philosopher ; Dio
62.29 ; PIR? A 609 ; Cassius Asclepiodotus, restored under Galba ; Tac.
Ann. 16.33 ; Dio 62.26.2; PIR? C 486.
From this total certain persons may easily be discounted as being of no
political importance during their exile. Thus Silia, whose only crime,
allegedly, was friendship with Petronius ; Tac. Ann. 16.20.1. The group of
five from Tac. Ann. 15.71.10 are otherwise unknown and can hardly have
been of any significance or prominence. Of all it may be said that they were
probably adherents to rather than leaders of the conspiracy, the implication
being that they would be unlikely to foment further rebellion individually in
isolation. Only C. Cassius and Helvidius Priscus seem capable of leadership
but even in these cases, where the impression is obviously that of locations
in exile away from military positions, it may be doubted that they were
capable of serious insurrection. The conclusion has to be, therefore, that

this group of exiles did not constitute a great danger to the security of Nero.
Exiled in 61 after condemnation on a forgery charge were Valerius
Fabianus, Vinius Rufinus, and Terentius Lentinus ; Tac. Amn. 14.40.5.
Nothing more is known of any of these men. They may, or may not, have
still been in exile in 68, but the non-political nature of their offence makes
it a remote possibility that they were involved in the designs of Vindex and
Galba. Added to this category may be M. Tarquitius Priscus, exiled also in
61 for extortion, Tac. Ann. 15.46.1, of whom nothing is known after the
date of exile. Likewise M. Antonius Primus, condemned under the /ex Cor-
nelia, Tac. Ann. 14.40, and restored under Galba, Dio 64.9.3 ; PIR? A 866.
L. Vibius Secundus, convicted for extortion in 60, was probably still in
exile, but it is difficult to see any personal connection with Nero ; Tac. Ann.
14.28 ; cf. Hist. 2.10; PIR' V 398. Three persons exiled earlier in the
reign were Livineius Regulus, P. Suillius Rufus, and the accusator Paetus ;
whether they were still in exile in 68 is unknown ; Tac. Ann. 14.17 ; 13.42-
43; 13.23. Possibly of greater danger was Fabricius Veiento, condemned in
62 to an unknown destination after conviction for libel and venality ; Tac.
Ann. 14.50.1-2. Return after Nero's death is likely ; P7R? F 91. But there is
no clear evidence of his implication in the conspiracy. Finally in exile in 68
was C. Caecina Tuscus, but his origins make him an unlikely serious
political threat ; above, 215f.
The overriding impression from this catalogue of exiles is that in absolute
terms Nero had little to fear from these people, so that the notion of mass
slaughter cannot be taken as a serious proposition. The present text in this
regard is no more than specious. The same may be concluded for the threat
to execute all Gallic elements in Rome if conjecture is based on the statistics
of men from the Tres Galliae found in the senate and imperial service under
Nero.
That Gallicanorum must refer to the Tres Galliae and not to Narbonensis
is apparent from the succeeding popularium suorum. Only two candidates
are offered by Syme, Tacitus, 799f, the orators M. Aper and lulius Secun-
dus, but even these are uncertain ; cf. S. J. de Laet, De Samenstelling van
den romeinschen Senaat (1941), 280f; PIR? A 910; [I 559. The same
paucity of numbers is true for imperial procurators and military tribunes ;
A. N. Sherwin-White, Racial Prejudice in Imperial Rome (1967), S2ff.
Such a lack of careerists makes it extremely unlikely that there were Gauls
in Rome in 68 sufficient to cause Nero alarm. The text, therefore, can in no
way reflect any genuine deterrent action against the rebels taken or intended
by Nero.
Gallias exercitibus diripiendas permittere

The German armies are probably meant ; Hainsworth, art. cit., 89. Coer-
cive action by the Rhine legions was certainly the most obvious way to quell
the rebellion in normal circumstances ; above, 250f. This rumour may mean
that such a policy was at some stage considered by Nero, but then became
distorted by hostile elements.
senatum uniuersum ueneno per conuiuia necare

Cf. Dio 63.27.2 ; Heinz, Das Bild, 63; Aur. Vict. De Caes. 5.14,
above, 226. The simpie unfeasibility of such a project deprives this item of
any seriousness. Possibly the point of the rumour was to vilify Nero
through allusion to the murders of Claudius and Britannicus and other
poisonings.
urbem incendere feris in populum immissis, quo difficilius defenderentur

Cf. Dio 63.27.2; Heinz, Das Bild, 63; Aur. Vict. De Caes. 5.14;
above, 164 ; 226ff. Plainly no more than a popular belief after the idea had
taken hold that Nero was responsible for the outbreak of the great fire.
Townend, Latin Biography, 91, connects it with the version of fire theories
that Nero only "p/anned to set fire to the city" (cf. Tac. Ann. 15.38.1 ;
above, 227). Although Suetonius' practice of adopting different versions of
the same event in various sections of his work is indisputable, this particular
case does not, however, stand up. The reference here has to be to 68 (as
Townend acknowledges). There is no point to the remark otherwise. So it
must be a rumour of a potential second fire, and not derived from an ex-
planation of the first.
43.2 consules ante tempus priuauit honore atque in utriusque locum solus
iniit consulatum
If the narrative source is resumed here this event must be subsequent to
the receipt of the news in ss.42.1 and 42.2, for which dates in April are
suggested. This is borne out by Plin. Pan. 57.2, fuit etiam qui in principatus
sui fine, consulatum quem dederat ipse, magna ex parte iam gestum ex-
torqueret et raperet. Normal tenure of the consulship would expire at the
end of June, given the usual practice of six-month consulates under Nero ;
above, 98. But the present episode cannot be fixed more positively. The or-
dinarii of 68 were Ti. Catius Asconius Silius Italicus and P. Galerius
Trachalus ; Degrassi, Fasti, 18. But inscriptions record Trachalus' name
with Nero's ; CIL VI 9190 ; 8639 = X 6637. This does not altogether mean
that Suetonius is wrong in his statement of a sole consulship. The in-

scriptional material is very fragmentary, and Trachalus’ name may have
been inserted to conform with the convention of two consular names simply
because there had been only one.
cum post epulas triclinio digrederetur

See above, 242.
affirmauit, simul ac primum prouinciam attigisset, inermen se ín conspectum

exercituum proditurum nec quicquam aliud quam fleturum, reuocatisque ad
paenitentiam defectoribus
Another anecdote intended to portray the absurdity of Nero's reaction to
this crisis. The use of the plural forms exercituum and defectoribus may be
rhetorical exaggerations, or else refer generically to the client forces of Vin-
dex ; Plut. Galba 4.3 ; Syme, Tacitus, 462. Yet the similar phrase in s.47.1,
ceterorum exercituum defectione, almost certainly means Roman troops, so
this may also be the meaning here. If so the plurals will include the troops
led into Gaul by Verginius Rufus, originally for the siege of Vesontio ; Dio
63.24.1 ; Plut. Galba 6.1. Troop movements from the Spanish provinces
are unattested. If Vesontio had already been fought, and Nero still believed
a personal visit to Gaul necessary and vital, and then resorted to extreme
forms of recruitment policy (s.44.1), this must have been due to the need to
confront Verginius and the rebellious troops under his command ; Dio
63.23 ; Plut. Galba 6.2-3 ; above, 254ff. As an immediate and anticipatory
move, it may have been now that Nero despatched Rubrius Gallus xai
&AÀoug ttvàg to Gaul; Dio 63.27.1.
defectoribus
Cf. Goodyear ad Tac. Ann. 1.48.1.
44.] primam curam habuit deligendi uehicula portandis scaenicis organis

See above, 243.
concubinasque
Cf. above, 164.
mox tribus urbanas ad sacramentum citauit

It is not clear whether this was a political action or a recruitment
measure. The oath may be the oath of loyalty to the princeps which was
renewed annually, except that here an irregular procedure would have to be

understood, or else the oath of loyalty taken by recruits on enlistment. For
the former see the edition of the Res Gestae by Brunt and Moore (1967),
67f, with especially ZLS 8781 ; for the latter cf. Dion. Hal. Ant. 10.18.2 ;
11.43.2; Liv. 22.38.3; DS s.vv. 'sacramentum', ' dilectus".
nec nisi ex tota cuiusque familia probatissimos, ne dispensatoribus quidem

aut amanuensibus exceptis, recepit
This text may reflect the attempts of Nero to raise the legion which sub-
sequently became I Adiutrix. It was composed partly of seamen, classiarii,
who were freedmen ; Suet. Galba 12.2 ; Plut. Galba 15.3-4. Its presence in
Italy is attested at Tac. Hist. 1.6. The amanuenses and dispensatores were
possibly intended for the minor legionary executive positions, librarii, exac-
tores and so on ; cf. H. M. D. Parker, The Roman Legions (repr. 1971),
207, though all the indications are that the legion was to be made up of
freedmen. Suetonius follows a tradition different from that of Tacitus, who
records more regular troop disbursements : I /ta/íca, raised for the projected
Caspian expedition (above, 117f) is shown to be at Lugdunum in 69,
probably having been diverted thence from northern Italy ; Hist. 1.74.2 ;
Brunt, art. cit., 540. Also, legions were summoned from Illyricum and ac-
tually arrived in Italy along with other detachments intended for the East ;
Hist. 1.70; Brunt, /.c. ; above, 260.
44.2 partem etiam census omnes ordines conferre iussit

Perhaps to pay for the new levies.
et insuper inquilinos priuatarum aedium atque insularum pensionem annuam

repraesentare fisco
Inquilini were tenants of apartments, houses, or insulae under the terms
of locatio, conductio rei ; DS s.vv ; W. W. Buckland, 4 Textbook of Roman
Law! (1966), 305. The distinction here implied between the two types of
accommodation is analogous to that at ss.16.1, 38.2. This must mean that
priuatorum aedium is synonymous with domus. While it was regular
procedure to lease ground floor shops in domus, it was not common for
domus themselves to be leased out. Occupation was usually maintained by
the owner. But the possibility of such a transaction is confirmed at Suet.
Vitell. 7.2, ut..domum in reliquam partem anni ablocaret ; cf. Meiggs, Ostia,
258 ; L. Homo, La Rome impériale (1951), 550f. This text may convey the
legalistic terminology of an enactment, and the distinction in building types
may refer to different categories of income groups; cf. omnes ordines

above; rich and poor alike were to contribute ; above, 193.
fisco
That is, the financial organisation controlled de facto by the princeps.
Distinction between ‘public’ and ‘private’ is irrelevant; cf. Jones, JRS 40
(1950), 25 ; Brunt, JRS 56 (1966), 75 ; contra Millar, JRS 53 (1963), 39 ;
see also above, 192.
nummum asperum
See M. Crawford, JRS 60 (1970), 46, who suggests that a demand for
"fresh coin" was unusual.
consensu flagitantes a delatoribus potius reuocanda praemia quaecumque

cepissent
The revival of the /ex maiestatis in 62 opened the way to a revival of ac-
cusations which proliferated after the Pisonian conspiracy; Tac. Amn.
14.48 ; above, 237f. The usual reward for a delator on the bringing of a
successful prosecution was one quarter of the defendant's means ; Koester-
mann ad Tac. Ann. 16.33. The evidence for rewards to Neronian informers,
however, is meagre; cf. Tac. Anm. 16.33.4, accusatoribus Eprio et
Cossutiano quinquagies sestertium singulis, Ostorio duodecies ... tribuuntur ;
Tac. Hist. 4.42, (Regulus) ... septuagiens sestertio saginatus.
45.1 ex annonae quoque caritate lucrantila] adcreuit inuidia ; nam et forte

accidit, ut in publica fame Alexandrina nauis nuntiaretur puluerem
luctatoribus aulicis aduexisse
A rise in the price of corn can have resulted only from a shortage, as the
text demonstrates. But this can have nothing to do with events in Gaul! and
Spain. More plausible is the view that the famine was due to the activities of
Clodius Macer in Africa ; above, 260. It seems that his intention from the
outset of his insurrection was to starve Rome into recognition of him ; cf.
Plut. Galba 13.3, and for the full argument see AJP 93 (1972), 451ff.
lucranti[a]
Lucranti (sc. Neroni) must be the preferred reading.
45.2 Quare omnium in se odio incitato nihil contumeliarum defuit quin

subiret
The statement is a climax to the persistently disparaging stories of
ss.44.1-45.1. The generalisation is inflated, or at least of temporary
significance only ; contrast the references to Nero's popularity after his
death ; Tac. Hist. 1.4 ; 1.8 ; below, 293. In the exempla adduced in support
Neronian outrages are the vehicle and objects of criticism: cirrus,
philhellenism (cf. s.51) ; culleum, the matricide ; cantando, aestheticism.
Cf. Subrius Flavus’ dictum at Tac. Ann. 15.67.3.
cum inscriptione Graeca: nunc demum agona esse, et traderet tandem

Townend, Hermes 88 (1960), 109, suggests that this item originated in a
basic narrative source, which he identifies as the elder Pliny, arguing that
this source eschewed the use of Greek and conveyed Greek material into
Latin. Hence the reason for Suetonius’ rendition in Latin of an inscriptio
Graeca. For passages where Suetonius retains Greek, another source is
posited, Cluvius Rufus. It was observed above, 247, that the quotation in
s.40.2 appearing also in Dio most likely derived from the common source,
which if correct should mean that the basic narrative source did in fact use
Greek on occasion. However, it is equally likely that the present text does
not derive from a common source since it does not appear in Dio, in con-
trast to the following exemplum. It might well be then an independently
acquired piece of information gathered for corroborative purposes in an
exemplary section. The reason for conversion into Latin may be no more
than simple expediency. Like other instances of Latinised Greek, the text is
given in indirect speech where Latin usage should be expected ; cf. above,
126f.
alterius collo ascopa deligata simulque titulus

Cf. Dio 61.16.1, where the material is put in a more apposite context,
the murder of Agrippina. The information has been displaced by Suetonius
from a common source, for it has no direct relevance to the events of 68 ;
cf. below, 268.
ascopa
This word is extremely rare, but is a reading preferable to ascopera. It
may descend from doxonnpa but more probably doxondtivn , Ernout,
Meillet, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine (1932), s.v.; TLL
S.v. ; contra, A. A. Howard, HSCPh 7 (1896), 208 ; W. Chawner, CR 9
(1895), 110.
ego quid potui? sed tu culleum meruisti

For attempts to remove the obscurity see Howard, art. cit., suggesting egi
ego quod potui sed tu culleum meruisti ; Chawner, art. cit., suggesting ego
quid? tu autem meruisti.
Vindicem
Inclusion at this juncture of Vindex' name does not affect the earlier
proposition (above, 257) that Vesontio had aleady been fought and Vindex
killed. The exemplary technique of the section deprives this item of any
chronological significance. Cf. above, 267.
46.] Terrebatur ad hoc euidentibus portentis somniorum et auspiciorum et

ominum
Cf. ful. 81.1, euidentibus prodigiis ; Aug. 97.1, euidentissimis ostentis.
The inclusion in catalogue form of prodigies and portents, signs of divine
disfavour, is a conventional feature of Roman historical writing ; cf. Syme,
Tacitus, 522 ; P. G. Walsh, Livy (1961). 61ff. Perhaps for this reason it
constitutes a frequent item in Suetonian biography ; cf. /u/. 81.1-3; Aug.
97.1-2; Tib. 74 etc. Suetonius’ reason for including omens and portents,
however, may be. different from and less elevated than those of the
historians. For Livy is claimed a philosophical interpretation of prodigia;
Walsh, op. cit., 64 ; cf. W. Laistner, The Greater Roman Historians (1947),
69f ; contra 1. Kajanto, God and Fate in Livy (1957), 52. Tacitus could not
allow himself to neglect the unnatural ; Syme, Tacitus, 522, citing Hist.
2.50, uulgatis traditisque demere fidem non ausim. But for Suetonius there
is no comparable grauitas coepti operis. By contrast, his purpose may well
be conquirire fabulosa et fictis oblectare legentium animos ; Tac. Lc. ; cf.
above, 246. The view that Suetonius has no high regard for the import of
prodigia because he nowhere makes subjective comments on his lists of por-
tents is a fallacy ; F. B. Krauss, An Interpretation of the Omens, Portents
etc. in Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius (Diss. 1931), 29. This misses one of the
most obvious characteristics of Suetonius’ work, the minimal number of
personal instrusions by the author on almost any matter. For prodigies in
general see R. Bloch, Les Prodiges dans l'antiquité classique (1963), 129ff.
cum ueteribus tum nouis

That is, the opening generalisation will be illustrated from a wide range
of sources, not just related to the immediate stage of events in the narrative
of the rebellion.
nauem
The ship of state ; Krauss, op. cit., 151. But allusion is also doubtless in-
tended to the ship meant to kill Agrippina ; s.34.2.
pinnatarum formicarum multitudine oppleri

A sign of abandonment by popular elements ; cf. Tib. 72.2 ; Krauss, op.
cit., 151.
a simulacris gentium ad Pompei theatrum dedicatarum circumiri arcerique

progressu
Fourteen statues representing the peoples subdued by Pompey formed
part of the decorations of the theatrum Pompei ; Plin. NH 36.41 ; cf. above,
83. It is uncertain whether they stood within the theatre or the adjacent por-
ticus Pompei ; Platner, Ashby, Topographical Dictionary, s.v. But the in-
dication is obviously one of provincial uprising ; Krauss, op. cir., 151.
asturconem
Krauss, op. cit., 151, interprets this as another sign of popular hostility
to Nero, but does not give reasons.
46.2 Mausoleo
For the Mausoleum Augusti see Platner, Ashby, Topographical Dic-
tionary, s.v. ; E. Nash, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome (1962), s.v. ;
Blake, Ancient Roman Construction in Italy (1947), 171f.
exaudita uox est nomine eum cientis

Cf. Vesp. 23.4, nam cum inter cetera prodigia Mausoleum derepente
patuisset..
Kal. lan.
Cf. below, 270. Perhaps an allusion to the sacrifices of the Arval college
for which on Ist January see AFA for 57 and 58 (Smallwood, Documents,
nos. 18 ; 20).
exornati Lares in ipso sacrificii apparatu conciderunt

Evidence of the loss of divine approval of the reign ; Krauss, op. cit., 170
n.24. See below, 270, for the sacrifice. For the Lares in the Arval grove,
Henzen, 145.
Sporus
See above. 161.
Proserpinae raptus
To signify the “suddenness and violence of (Nero's) death" ; Krauss, op.
cit., 170 n.24.
uotorum nuncupatione, magna iam ordinum frequentia

The qualification of the second phrase makes it probable that this text
refers to the vows taken annually on 3rd January for the well-being (pro
salute) of the princeps by the senate and priestly colleges, rather than the
vows of Ist January, taken by the senate alone in acta principis ; cf. e.g.,
AFA for 59 and 60 ( 2 Smallwood, Documents, nos. 21, 22) ; Plut. Cic.
2.1 ; Dio 59.24.6 ; Koestermann ad Tac. Ann. 16.22.1 ; Sherwin- White,
Pliny, 611f; Dig. 50.16.233.1. This makes the selective nature of the
exempla clear.
Capitolii
Cf. AFA ll.c, uictirnis immolatis in Capitolio.
46.3 ex oratione eius, qua in Vindicem perorabat, recitaretur in senatu

Suetonius has stated earlier, s.41.2, that Nero failed to consult the senate
and people on his arrival in Rome concerning the emergency situation, not
without reproach. This text, however, seemingly derived from an alternative
tradition, suggests that some concern to palliate senatorial feelings and to
maintain allegiance had been felt by Nero, and that an attempt to do so had
been made. The text may be connected with the remark at Plut. Gal/ba 5.4,
that at one stage the senate declared Galba a public enemy. This must have
been at a period of indecision when the outcome of events was still in the
balance and attention to Nero's directions still being maintained to a
degree. Although the practice of using variant traditions on Suetonius’ part
leads to inconsistencies within the text, it does at least permit a reappraisal
of the predominent tradition of Nero's irresponsibility in the final crisis.
obseruatum etiam fuerat

The tense may indicate a change in source material ; Townend, art. cit.,
104 ; but see above, 247.
Oedipodem
See s.21.3.
AN HISTORICAL COMMENTARY 27]
Üavetv u' dvwye ovyyanos, untnp. naTüp

Cf. Dio 63.28.5 (with Nauck, Adesp. 8), where a variant but similar
quotation appears in a later part of the narrative.
47.1-2
Suetonius here returns to the basic narrative interrupted at s.44.1, and
describes the desperation of Nero's plans the day before his death, that is,
8th (or conceivably 10th) June; cf. s.47.3, in posterum diem ; and see
below, 292.
47.1 Nuntiata interim etiam ceterorum exercituum defectione

The armies already in a certain state of rebellion were those only of
Galba and Macer, and, presumably, the remnants of Vindex' Gallic levies.
The armies of the East and of Britain were commanded by loyalist, or at
least neutral generals ; above, 259f. This all-embracing text must then
relate to the defection of the Balkan legions and of the troops newly raised
by Nero; cf. Tac. Hist. 1.8 ; Brunt, art. cit., 541 ; contra, Chilver, art. cit.,
32. Moreover, in view of the length of time required for news to travel from
Alexandria to Rome it may have been only at this late juncture that Nero
became aware of the wavering of Ti. Iulius Alexander (above, 259) ; which
would then account for the hesitation in deciding whether to escape to
Egypt; s.47.2. The attitude of the German legions is more difficult to
decide. They were certainly reluctant to desert Nero, Tac. Hist. 1.8, but this
does not mean that they were still loyal almost as late as 8th June, as ap-
parently believed by Shotter, art. cit., 373. With Vesontio in April and
military movements after this, Dio 63.27.1 cannot be disregarded.
Verginius Rufus did not join Galba until the senate had abandoned Nero,
Plut. Galba 6.4; but with Vindex" army more or less eliminated after
Vesontio, the troop movements within Italy are explicable only on the
assumption that Nero was alarmed about Verginius. This text, then, should
probably not be taken to incorporate the German armies ; contra, Shotter,
art. cit., 373, following Hainsworth, art. cit., 86.
litteras prandenti sibi redditas concerpsit, mensam subuertit

Cf. Plut. Galba 5.3, where the same material appears but in the context
of the original news of Galba's defection. See also above, 242.
duos scyphos gratissimi usus, quos Homerios a caelatura carminum Homeri

uocabat, solo inlisit
Cf. Plin. NH 37.29, Nero amissarum rerum nuntio accepto duos calices
crystallinos in suprema ira fregit inlisos. The similarity of subject matter
here may offer a clue to the identity of Suetonius’ main source in the
narrative section if it is conceded that a similar entry appeared in Pliny's
Historiae. For Homeric scenes on silver cups note D. E. Strong, Greek and
Roman Gold and Silver Plate (1966), 136 ; 140 ; and plates 35B and 44B.
Lucusta
See above, 198f.
auream pyxidem
Cf. s.12.3, and see the illustrations in Strong, op. cit., plates 32B and
544A.
hortos Seruilianos
The exact location of these gardens is unknown, though proximity to the
uia Ostiensis is suggested from Nero's intention to escape to Ostia. This has
led to the proposal that the gardens lay between the uia Ostiensis and the
uia Ardeatina ; P. Grimal, Les Jardins romains? (1969), 157 ; cf. Platner,
Ashby, Topographical Dictionary, s.v. ; RE s.v. The gardens may have been
in the possession of Nero since the death in 59 of M. Servilius Nonianus ;
Tac. Ann. 15.55 ; Grimal, op. cit., 157. They are known to have been the
site of various works of art ; Plin. VH 36.23 ; 25 ; 36. Cf. Dio 63.27.3 for
a garden reference prior to Nero's flight.
praemissis libertorum fidissimis Ostiam ad classem praeparandam

Precise identification of these imperial freedmen is impossible but the
most likely contender for the Ostian mission must be Helius, the all-
powerful deputy of Nero during the latter's absence in Greece; above,
I41f; Dio 63.12; 18.2. His loyalty is to be assumed from his later
execution by Galba ; Dio 64.3.4! ; Plut. Galba 17.2 ; PIR? H 69. Other
freedmen put to death by Galba were Patrobius, Polyclitus, Petinus, Nar-
cissus, and Pythagoras ; Dio 64.3.4 ; Plut. Galba 17.2 ; cf. PIR'! P 119;
430; 40; 826; N 19; any of these might have been included. Phaon,
Epaphroditus, Neophytus, and Sporus, however, have to be excluded from
consideration since they were Nero's companions in his flight to Phaon's
villa ; below, 276. It is unlikely that they were also despatched to Ostia.
tribunos centurionesque praetorii de fugae societate temptauit

Appeal to the lower ranking officers implies that the praefecti had already
broken their allegiance to Nero. At a very late stage, according to Plut.

Galba 2.1-2, the praetorians were bribed by Nymphidius Sabinus to
renounce Nero and to acclaim Galba. This final military loss was fatal ; cf.
Brunt, art. cit, 542.
47.2 uarie agitauit, Parthosne an Galbam supplex peteret

The settlement with Parthia (above, 89) had established conditions which
made retreat to the East a genuine possibility ; cf. below, 294f. Sanford,
HSCPh 48 (1937), 100f, and 99 for associations with oracular prophecies.
uel Aegypti praefecturam concedi sibi

Cf. Dio 63.27.2; Plut. Galba 2.1. Concedi makes good sense if Nero
now knew about the disloyalty of the prefect of Egypt; above. 259,
although in any case the rule of Egypt would be a ‘concession’ from a new
princeps who was in complete control.
inuentus est poslea in scrinio eius hac de re sermo formatus

This text demands preparation of a voyage by Nero so that Egypt might
have been his destination before the news of Ti. lulius Alexander arrived;
cf. above, 259. Note also Plin. Epp. 7.27.14.
47.3-49.4
These sections, which comprise the exitus of Nero proper, are generally
recognised as the most successful piece of narrative composition in the
whole of Suetonius' work. Compression, abundance of detail, vividness are
its accepted qualities ; cf. Townend, Latin Biography, 93ff. That Suetonius
still adheres to a basic narrative source appears likely in spite of the added
detail, for the epitome of Dio at this stage continues to have many parallels
with Suetonius’ text and is itself fuller and more graphic than the previous
abbreviated excerpts. It may be that the common source itself was more
comprehensive in its treatment, unless Suetonus and Dio have borrowed
more heavily than usual. In any case, some especial catering for the interest
of the reader is seemingly indicated ; cf. Heinz, Das Bild, 61. Despite the
literary success, however, the piece at the same time has details which con-
tribute little or nothing to elucidating the last hours of Nero's life. It is im-
possible to comment on such items as s.47.3, direptis etiam stragulis,
s.48.3, inter fruticeta ac uepres, s.A8.2 tremore terrae et fulgure aduerso.
These items have a telling effect in a novelettish sense, but this is all.
However, other details suggest an ultimate betrayal of Nero. Townend, op.

cit., 95, observes difficulties over the stealthy approach to the villa, the
mediocre quality of the food, the avoidance of the servants, the swift arrival
of the cavalry. The whole course of events smells of treachery’’. If so, this
can have been from the freedmen only. The result, from the historical point
of view, is that the passage remains tantalising and elusive.
47.3 in posterum diem

The day of death (cf. 5.49.4). hence 9th, or possibly 11th, June; see
below, 292. Events start the night of 8th/9th June, ad mediam fere noc-
tem ; cf. Anon. Epit. de Caes. 5.7, desertus undique noctis medio egressus
urbe.
ut comperit stationem militum recessisse

This guard is distinct from the custodes below, apparently the imperial
bodyguard, made up of praetorians on one hand, and sentries inside a
building on the other. Cf. Dio 63.27.2b; Jos. BJ 4.493.
prosiluit e lecto
Cf. Dio 63.27.3, & ximo ó£ cai Hw yxave xabevdwy, which would sen-
sibly be identifiable with the Servilian gardens ; above, 272. Late sources,
however, report that Nero's escape was finally made from the Palatine; cf.
Eutrop. 7.15.1, e palatio fugit; Hier. Chron. 2084r, e palatio fugiens,
which there is no cause to doubt. At some stage, therefore, Nero withdrew
to the palace, which might either be the Domus Aurea or the Domus
Tiberiana, from the Servilian gardens, which, topographically, would concur
with the decision not to make for Ostia but to proceed northeast to Phaon's
villa, skirting the castra praetoria in the process; s.48.1.
misitque circum amicos

Not in Dio.
hospitia
Rolfe (Loeb edition H, 174) suggests that these were rooms in the palace
in which the amici lodged. Town-dwellings might be more appropriate for
those unconnected with the imperial household.
cubiculum
A residence of some kind may be inferred from Tac. Ann. 15.55.1, ...
Milichus in hortos Servilianos pergit; et cum foribus arceretur.
custodes
They may have been the custodes Germanici, known, for example, from
Tac. Ann. 1.24; Suet. Calig. 45.1; 55.2, 58.3, and from various in-
scriptions, ZLS 1720 ; 1721 ; Gordon, A/bum, I no. 121 ( Smallwood,
Documents, no. 293) ; Not. Scav. (1950), 86ff; RE s.v. ‘custos’ (2). See
above, 274.
pyxide ueneni
See above, 272.
Spiculum murmillonem
Ti. Claudius Spiculus is known from CIL X 6690 to have been a decurio
in Nero's bodyguard ; RE s.v. ‘Claudius’ no. 355 ; PIR' S 579. Galba per-
mitted his death at the hands of the mob; Plut. Galba 8.5. For his riches
see above, 166.
ergo ego, inquit, nec amicum habeo nec inimicum?

Cf. Dio 63.29.2 ; Heinz, Das Bild, 65. Dio places the dictum nearer the
actual moment of death in his account. It is extended in Anon. Epit. de
Caes. 5.7 with a second half parallel to the quotation in s.49.4. A
"histrionic 'cri-du-oceur"" ; Ogilvie ad Liv. 2.40.8.
48.1 ad colligendum animum

This point in the narrative seems to be where the change in strategy from
the originally intended departure to Ostia is intimated.
Phaonte liberto
Little is known of the life of Phaon. CIL III 14112.2 refers to a Phaon
Aug(usti) Kibertus) a rat(ionibus), probably identical with this man, his
period of office falling in the last years of the reign ; P. R. C. Weaver, CQ
15 (1965), 149 ; cf. Schumann, 57. CIL X 444 ( 2 ILS 3546) records a
dedication by a L. Domitius Phaon of his estate to Silvanus and is of
Domitianic date. Again the same person may be surmised, freedom having
been conferred by Nero's aunt, Domitia Lepida, on the analogy of AE 1914,
no. 219, where this is reasonably certain for another L. Domitius Phaon.
RE s.v. 'Phaon' no. 2; PIR! P 248.
suburbanum suum inter Salariam et Nomentanam uiam circa quartum

miliarium
For parallelisms of vocabulary, cf. Eutrop. 7.15.1 ; Oros. 7.7.13 ; Hier.

Chron. 2084r. The Via Salaria led in a northeasterly direction from the city
through the Portae Collina and Salaria. Hence, the Via Nomentana, of sub-
sidiary importance, forked at the Porta Collina leading through the Porta
Nomentana to Nomentum ; Platner, Ashby, Topographical Dictionary, 565 ;
567. The route taken, therefore, was diametrically opposite to the Ostian
route. Observe Chron. 354, Nero occisus uia Patinaria, which is uniden-
tifiable.
ut erat nudo pede atque tunicatus, paenulam obsoleti coloris superinduit

adopertoque capite et ante faciem optento sudario equum inscendit
Cf. Dio 63.27.3 ; Heinz, Das Bild, 64. Clothing details were perhaps a
minor characteristic of the common source; cf. s.42.1, ueste discissa.
quattuor solis comitantibus, inter quos et Sporus erat

Cf. Anon. Epit. de Caes. 5.7, sequentibus Phaone Epaphrodito Neo-
phytoque et spadone Sporo. Dio, 63.27.3, omits to mention Neophytus, who
is unknown apart from the reference in the Epit. de Caes.. and speaks else-
where, 63.28.3, only of three freedmen. Jos. BJ 4.493, however, confirms
the number four. The presence of both Phaon and Epaphroditus could be
inferred from subsequent stages of the text ; ss.48.3 ; 49.3. Yet the specific
mention of Sporus, awkwardly interposed, may be made for stylistic reasons
since this figure provides a symbol of Nero's degeneracy : Townend, op. cit.,
110 n.31 ; see above, 161f. Observe Victor's improvement on Suetonius.
5.16, desertus undique nisi ab spadone.
48.2 tremore terrae

Cf. Dio 63.28.1, with subjective interpretation of the earthquake's
significance ; Heinz, Das Bild, 64.
e proximis castris clamorem militum et sibi aduersa et Galbae prospera

ominantium
Doubtless the reference is to the praetorian camp; cf. above, 274. The
_ noise may be the acclamation by the troops of Galba as imperator ; Plut.
Galba 7.2 has Icelus report that the soldiers hailed Galba after Nero's flight
but before his death.
uiatoribus
Messengers attached to magisterial staffs; cf. Jones, Siudies, 154fT ;
OCD? s.v.
detecta facie agnitus est a quodam missicio praetoriano et salutatus

Cf. Dio 63.28.1, reporting the incident as hearsay only ; Heinz, Das
Bild, 64.
48.3 ut ad deuerticulum uentum est

inter fruticeta ac uepres

eodem Phaonte
See above, 275.
specum
Cf. Dio 63.28.5.
aquam
Cf. Dio 63.28.5. Dio adds the eating of bread, reserved until s.48.4 by
Suetonius, probably conflating two separate incidents.
haec est, inquit, Neronis decocta

Cf. Dio 63.28.5 ; Heinz, Das Bild, 65 ; Plin. NH 31.40, Neronis principis
inuentum est decoquere aquam uitroque demissam in niues refrigerare ; ita
uoluptas frigoris contingit sine uitiis niuis ; Mart. Epig. 14.117.
49.1 qualis artifex pereo

Cf. Dio 63.29.2 ; Heinz, Das Bild, 63. An aesthetic context for this dic-
tum is to be preferred (cf. above, 247) against the interpretation of Nero as
"the great showman" ; Syme, Emperors and Biography (1971), 109;
Tacitus, 41. Artifex will not bear such a meaning; T7LL s.v. while
Suetonius invariably uses the word in the sense of ‘artist’; cf. Jul. 84.2;
Vesp. 18; s.20.1 ; Momigliano, 741.
49.2 legitque se hostem a senatu iudicatum

Cf. Dio 63.27.2b ; Joann. Antioch. fr. 91 M v.74-77 ; 92 M v.55-60 ;
Eutrop. 7.15.1; Anon. Epit. de Caes. 5.7; Oros. 7.7.13, putting the
declaration before the flight. The ban of outlawry meant that Nero could
lawfully be executed by any citizen; cf., e.g.. App. BC 1.60; 74; DS s.v.
"hostis".
et cum comperisset nudi hominis ceruicem inseri furcae, corpus uirgis ad

necem caedi
Cf. Joann. Antioch. ic. ; Anon. Epit. de Caes. 5.7 ; Eutrop. 7.15 em-
bellishes, ... ut nudus per publicum ductus furca capiti eius inserta uirgis
usque ad mortem caederetur atque ita praecipitaretur a saxo. This is an im-
portant text for the definition of punishment more maiorum, for which cf.
Liv. Per. 55 and Epit. de Caes., Eutrop. /i.c. Flogging might precede
punishment by the furca, hanging from the fork; Isid. Orig. 5.27.34.
fatalem horam
See above, 15; 46.
49.3 Sporum
See above, 276.
uiuo deformiter, turpiter — ov npéner Népwvt, ov npén&t — vrjpetv det év tots

TOLOUTOLG — aye Éyttpe otautóv
Cf. Anon. Epit. de Caes. 5.7, dedecorose uixi, turpius peream. Townend,
Hermes 88 (1960), 105, understands a source change for the Greek extract.
The Latin piece may have been part of a lengthier quotation in the basic
source ; cf. above, 275.
iamque equites appropinquabant

Cf. Dio 63.29.2.
praeceptum erat
For the possible connotation of officiales see above, 252.
ferrum iugulo adegit

Cf. Dio 63.29.2 ; Aur. Vict. De Caes. 5.16 ; Anon. Epit. de Caes. 5.7 ;
Oros. 7.7.13.
iuuante Epaphrodito a libellis

Cf. Dio 63.29.2 ; contra, Anon. Epit. de Caes. 5.7, et spadone Spore...
adiuuante. Epaphroditus is first heard of in connection with the discovery
of Piso’s conspiracy ; Tac. Ann. 15.55. In 95 he was exiled by Domitian,
Dio 67.14.4, and subsequently executed, quod posi destitutionem Nero in
adispiscenda morte manu eius adiutus existimabatur ; Suet. Domit. 14.4. He
may be identified with the recipient of certain of Josephus' works ; Ant.
1.8.9 ; Vita 430 ; Contra Ap. 1.1; 2.1.296. He was the owner of certain
gardens ; Front. Ag. 68. PIR? E 69. He has been assumed also to be the
(A)ug. |. Epaphrodit(o) of ILS 9505, rewarded with military honours for his
part in the detection of the Pisonian conspiracy ; L. A. Constans, MEFR 34
(1914), 383ff; Stein, PIR Lc.
49.4 Icelus, Galbae libertus

This is the earliest known reference to Icelus, so no definite reason for
his incarceration remains. Obviously his influence and usefulness to Galba
must have been considerable at the outset of the rebellion. He subsequently
delivered to Galba the news of Nero's death and was well rewarded for his
services by the new princeps ; Suet. Galba 14.2 ; 22 ; Plut. Galba 7 ; Tac.
Hist. 1.13. For his power add to the texts cited Plut. Ga/ba 20 ; for his
punishment after dispute with Galba, Tac. Hist. Lc. ; 1.33; 1.46. PIR? I
16.
50. Funeratus est impensa ducentorum milium

Despite the damnatio memoriae which followed Nero's death the expense
incurred in his burial recorded here might suggest a public funeral, for
which see J. M. C. Toynbee, Death and Burial in the Roman World (1971),
S6ff and above, 67.
stragulis albis auro intextis, quibus usus Kal. fan. fuerat

The date is possibly a reference to the taking of vows on Ist January.
Distinct from the vows for the well-being of the princeps on 3rd January
(above, 270) were the oaths to maintain the acta of the princeps and his
predecessors, made by the senate and magistrates; Tac. Ann. 1.72.1,
13.11.1; 16.22 ; Dio $3.28.1; 58.17.2; see especially Sherwin-White,
Pliny, 6116, for a discussion of first century practices. When the new
magistrates entered office vows were additionally taken for the safety of the
state, pro incolumitate reipublicae ; cf. Koestermann ad Ann. 16.22.1. If
such an inference is correct then it follows that the ceremonies were per-
sonally attended by Nero. The use of the pluperfect is likely to relate to one
specific occasion rather than to an habitual practice, and within the context
of ss.40-50 any other year than 68 would be incongruous. Thus, a terminus
for Nero's arrival in Rome after the Hellenic tour is obtained ; see Latomus
37 (1978). For the interest in clothing details cf. above, 276.
reliquias
Cremation was the most common form of ‘burial’; DS s.v. ‘funus’ ;
Toynbee, op. cit., 39ff ; that Nero's body was cremated is evident from Plut.
Galba 9.3 as well as (rom the present text.
Egloge et Alexandria nutrices

Apart from an inscription bearing the name Claudia Egloge, which was
found, apparently, on the site of Phaon's villa, both women are unknown ;
CIL VI 34916 with Huelsen ad loc.
Acte concubina
See above, 160f.
gentili Domitiorum monimento condiderunt, quod prospicitur e campo Martio

impositum colli Hortulorum
The definitive description for the tomb of the Domitii, which lay to the
northwest of the modern Pincio ; Platner, Ashby, Topographical Dictionary,
s.v. ‘sepulchrum Domitiorum’ ; for tombs in the Julio-Claudian period see
Blake, Roman Construction, 58ft.
colli Hortulorum
The first century name for the Mons Pincius, and so called because of the
extensive areas of garden on the hill which were originally gardens laid out
by Pompey, Lucullus, and Sallust; Platner, Ashby, Topographical Dic-
tíonary s.v. ; Grimal, op. cit., 120ff.
porphyretici marmoris
Pliny, NH 36.55 ; 57, mentions a red porphyry from Egypt, including a
variant with white spots, and an expensive green stone from Laconia. The
use of Egyptian porphyry was a recent innovation at Rome ; Blake, Roman
Construction, 3.
Lunensi
Carrara marble was one of the most commonly used types in the early
Empire, coming from the Etruscan city of Luna and in fact the city's prin-
cipal product. Pliny, NH 36.14, refers to its whiteness and the fact that it
was a comparatively new discovery, the earliest notice of its use being in the
time of Caesar ; ib. 36.48 ; RE s.v. ‘Luna’; since the time of Tiberius the
mines had been imperially owned ; Blake, Ancient Roman Construction in
Italy (1947), 53.
Thasio .
Another white marble; Plin. NH 36.44 ; cf. Blake, op. cit., S4ff.
Section 51 : The Physical Appearance of Nero
A description of the physical appearance of the princeps is a standard

feature of a Suetonian imperial biography and occurs in all the Lives,
though the amount of attention devoted to the topic gradually declines;
contrast, for instance, the length of Aug. 79-80 with the brevity of Vesp.
20. The insertion of anecdotes connected with physical appearance is also
an habitual practice. The descriptions themselves have a certain loose pat-
tern: elements such as siatura and facial appearance recur frequently,
whereas details (eyes, nose, mouth, etc.) are included only if something
unusual is to be noted. Suetonius' accuracy can be tested to some degree
through the use of the surviving iconography of Nero, although portrait
busts and coins are of no value for details of colouring. It has been
suggested that Suetonius himself did not rely on statues as evidence for his
descriptions of the emperors but relied instead for his basic material on
written sources and anecdotes (79). Yet even if allowance is made for the ef-
fects of the damnatio memoriae which followed Nero's death it seems
unrealistic to assume that Suetonius was totally uninfluenced by whatever
statues were visible in his own day (??). And certainly the coinage was still
available.
Of greater importance is the question why the physical description is a
feature of the biographies at all. A superficial answer might be that as a
continuator of the Alexandrian biographical tradition Suetonius included all
known details about his subjects ("). Yet it is not certain that Suetonius can
be claimed for the Alexandrian school ??) and it is clearly untrue to claim
that all details are incorporated in every biography. In fact, the label
‘photographic’ which has been attached to these descriptions (“) is mislead-
ing because, as noted above, the descriptions are rendered selectively for the
(36) A. E. WARDMAN, Descriptions of personal appearance in Plutarch and Suetonius.

The use of statues as evidence in CQ 17 (1967), 414ff.
(37) All Nero's statues were not destroyed after 68 ; cf. PLut. Otho 3.1 ; Tac. Hisr. 1.78.
(38) E. C. Evans, Physiognomics in the Ancient World in Transactions of the American
Philosophical Sociery us. 59, 5 (1969), 51; G. Misener, fconistic Portraits in CP 19
(1924), 97ffT; 118.
(39) A. D. Momictiano, The Developmeni of Greek Biography (1971). 88.
(40) E.g. MisENER., art. cir, 1407.
most part. Further, personal description appears in pre-Alexandrian

literature (*'), even though it may have received more attention from the
Alexandrians. The belief that a photographic description is consistent with
Suetonius’ avoidance of personal judgements on or psychological
penetrations of his subjects (*2) is similarly false. Statements such as those
at Calig. 22 or s.19.1 imply value-judgements of some kind (above, 14ff).
So too the relationship of ancestral characteristics to the traits of the
biographical subjects. The verdict that "Suetonius aimed in his lives of the
Caesars at portraying their characters rather than analysing their policy or
at narrating events" (*) is nearer the mark, so that besides the inherent in-
terest of the iconistic description for the reader there may also be truth in
the idea that the physical portrayal is relevant to the portrayal of character
through doctrines propounded by the physiognomists. There is evidence in
the remains of the zzpi fAacgnuuov that Suetonius had some acquaintance
with physiognomy (**, while a general interest in the subject in Suetonius’
day may be indicated by the composition of a physiognomical handbook by
the sophist Polemo of Laodicaea (*). An extreme view holds that the
physical descriptions in Suetonius were indeed not only motivated by
physiognomical interests but that they are thereby symptomatic of the
scientific nature of Suetonian biography (*5). The test in this case, however.
must be to consider the possible significance of the description of Nero in
terms of physiognomy and to see whether there is any correspondence with
Neronian characteristics displayed elsewhere in the biography. It becomes
apparent that some of the interpretations of Nero's physical attributes can
be compared favourably with various other recounted actions and activities,
but equally there is a lack of consistency in the interpretations — for exam-
ple, a clash between ‘sensitivity’ and ‘insensitivity’ — which illustrates the
danger of firmly subscribing to physiognomical analysis. On balance, it
would appear that Suetonius was familiar with the physiognomical
significances of the Neronian features mentioned in his text but that it is
unlikely that this fact alone determined the nature of the description.
[n addition to works cited in the footnotes on physiognomy see also E.
C. Evans, The Study of Physiognomy in the Second Century A.D. in TAPA
(41) D. R. Stuart, Epochs of Greek and Roman Biography (repr. 1967), 174ff.
(42) E.g.. Misener, arf. cit, 118.
(43) P. A. Brunt. J. M. Moore. edd., Res Gestae Divi Augusti (1967), 8.
(44) Evans, art. cir. S2íf.
(45) For M. Antonius Polemo see G. W. Bowrnsock, Greek Sophists in the Roman Em-
pire (1969), index s.v.
(46) J. Cousin, Suétone physiognomiste in REL 31 (1953), 234.
72 (1941), 96ff ; R. Megow, Antike Physiognomielehre in Das Altertum 9

(1963), 213ff.
51. Statura fuit prope iusta

Cf. ps.-Arist. Physiog. 813b: good physical proportions connote sen-
sitivity and a capacity to realise ambitions ; Plin. NH 30.16, nihil membris
defuit. A headless statue from Tralles, measuring 1m. 97, including 13 cm.
for the plinth, allows some estimate of Nero's size; see C. C. Vermeule,
Roman Imperíal Art in Greece and Asia Minor (1968), 389, and fig. 126 ;
G. Mendel, Catalogue des sculptures grecques, romaines, et byzantines II
(1914), 315f, no. 584.
corpore maculoso et fetido

Cf. ps.-Arist. Physiog. 810a: the panther, whose characteristics are
thievery, pettiness, and deceit has mottled skin, to xpiia mocxilov. Icono-
graphy is of no use here, but a possible allusion to Nero’s freckles has been
detected at Plin. NH 30.16, where freckles are said to be a handicap to
those practising magicae artes; A. Ernout, ad loc., in the Budé edition
(1947).
subflauo capillo
Cf. ps.-Arist. Physiog. 812a: the tawny-coloured hair of the lion is
associated with bravery, though identification of subflauus with mvppóg may
not be exact here; Polemo, De Physiog. Lib. 41, states that hair which is
fuluus is a sign of culture and aestheticism, while the anonymous author of
the De Physiog. Lib., 14, equates capilli sufflaui with boni mores. Again
iconography is of little aid here, though the genealogical colouring of the
Ahenobarbi (s.2) might be recalled as a slight control.
uultu pulchro magis quam uenusto

Cf. Sen. Apoc. 4.1, ille (Nero) mihi (Phoebus) similis uultu similisque
decore ; flagrat nitidus fulgore remisso / uultus; ps.-Sen. Oct. 22;
109f ; 457 etc., for tumidos et truces ... uultus. For portraits of Nero see R.
West, Rómische Portrat-Plastik (1933), plate LXII, nos. 271 ; 272 ; 273;
H. P. L'Orange, Apotheosis in Ancient Portraiture (1947), 56ff.
oculis caesis et hebetioribus

Cf. ps.-Arist. Physiog. 807b; 808a: weak eyes are symptomatic of
cowardice, and yet orderliness ; Polemo De Physiog. Lib. 54: oculi non
nitidi are said to be a sign of timidity. Suetonius here may possibly have
drawn on Pliny ; cf. NH 11.144, Neroni <caesii et>, nisi cum coniueret
ad prope admota, hebetes ; Ernout ad loc. (Budé).
ceruice obesa
Cf. ps.-Arist. Physiog. 807b ; 811a : a sign of strength, insensitivity, and
temper ; Polemo De Physiog. Lib. 23, breuitas et crassities colli for-
titudinem corporis sed timiditatem in animo significat. The feature is readily
visible from surviving portraits and from coin representations even from
Nero's earliest years of adulthood ; West, L'Orange, //.c. ; BMC I plates 38-
48.
uentre proiecto
Cf. ps.-Arist. Physiog. 810b: a sign of strength; Polemo De Physiog.
Lib. 14, of licence or else deceitfulness ; compare the Tralles statue ; above.
283.
gracillimis cruribus
Cf. Polemo De Physiog. Lib. 2 ; 54 ; Anon. De Physiog. Lib. 91 : angusta
crura are feminine and symptomatic of timidity. See Vermeule, /.c.
nam qui luxuriae immoderatissimae esset

See above, 165ff.
ter omnino per quattuordecim annos languit

An anceps ualetudo is noted at Tac. Ann. 14.22.6, in 60 after Nero had
taken a swim in the Marcian aqueduct; Tacitus also refers to another
probable illness sometime before 61 which must have been serious since
Memmius Regulus appears to have been prepared for the succession ; Anm.
14.47.1, with Furneaux ad foc. ; Rogers, TAPA 86 (1955), 193ff. An entry
in the AFA for 66 could refer to a third illness if Henzen's restoration is
correct: propter [... et ualet]udinem C[aesaris Augusti uota nuncupauit in
C/apitolio ; Henzen, Ixxxiii. There is no need, however, to suspect the sin-
cerity of these uota, as L. W. Daly, TAPA 81 (1950), 166.
ut comam semper in gradus formatam

This text is usually interpreted as a reference to the so-called ‘crimped’
hairstyle of Nero which appears on portraits from 64 on. Thus Suetonius’
semper is a clear exaggeration. Two views are held to explain the af-
fectation : firstly, that Nero's personal taste was influenced by a hairstyle

worn by Alexander the Great and is thus a symptom of the mounting
hellenistic influence on Nero's principate ; L'Orange, op. cit., 55ff ; alter-
natively, that the style was that of an auriga and so scandalous to Roman
upper class taste; Toynbee, Num. Chron.® 7 (1947), 126ff. Given the
similarity of styles between the Worcester head of Nero (L'Orange op. cit.,
57 fig. 32) and a contemporary bust of an auriga (Toynbee, art. cit., 137
fig. 1 = West, op. cit., plate 66 no. 289), together with the rise in Nero's
interest in charioteering (for which see above, 137ff), the latter seems the
more sensible interpretation. For further illustrations of the new style see
West, op. cit., plate 72 nos. 273 ; 275. Cf. also Sen. Apoc. 4.1, et adfuso
ceruix formosa capillo.
peregrinatione Achaica etiam pone uerticem summiserit

This should not mean that the hair was grown into the nape of the neck
since such a style is visible in Neronian portraiture from the earliest years ;
cf. Toynbee, art. cit, 138 ; BMC I plate 38, nos. 1-4 ; 26 ; and West, op.
cit., 229, commenting on a head of 60, "Das Haar ist noch immer von auf-
fallander Dichtigheit und wachst tief in den Nacken hinab". Rather, in 66
there was a change in style — the adoption of shoulder length hair in the
modern fashion. Again, L'Orange, /.c., unconvincingly associates this with
an Alexander style, but it seems certain that it was assumed especially for
the Greek tour ; cf. Dio 63.9.1, though Dio has nothing of the ‘tiered’ style.
For the tour of Greece see above, 137ff.
52. Liberalis disciplinas omnis fere puer attigit

Little is known about the education of Nero. It is improbable that any
type of formal instruction was given him in the household of Domitia
because he was obviously too young ; cf. above, 49f. The names of two
freedmen paedagogi are known, Anicetus and Beryllus, respectively later
prefect of the fleet at Misenum and ab epistulis Graecis ; Tac. Ann. 14.3 ;
Jos. Ant. 20.183 ; PIR? A 589; B 111 ; above, 212. These men probably
taught Nero during the time from Agrippina's return from exile (above, 51)
until the appointment of Seneca (above, 56). It is to be presumed that they
were not simply chaperons of Nero but also the equivalent of the primus
magister or litterator in the schools and gave Nero — along with his fellow
pupils (cf. s.22.1) — the basic educational skills. From the present text it
seems that during this period Nero also began study of the artes liberales,
though attigit suggests only a superficial study. The term comprised literary.
rhetorical, mathematical, and musical studies, the traditional 'broad

education’ ; cf. Cic. De Orat. 1.8-12 ; 187 ; 3.127 ; Tac. Dial. 30.4 ; Sen.
Epp. Moral. 88 ; A. Gwynn, Roman Education from Cicero to Quintilian
(1926), 84ff; J. Carcopino, Daily Life in Ancient Rome (Penguin ed.
1964), 119ff ; H.-I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity (1964 ed.),
358ff and 244f on artes liberales (= éyxuxdiog raiósía).
sed a philosophia eum mater auertit

For similar suspicion of the teachings of philosophy and the dangers
therein see Tac. Agric. 4.3, se prima in iuuenta studium philosophiae acrius,
ultra quam concessum Romano ac senatori, hausisse, ni prudentia matris in-
censum ac flagrantem animum coercuisset ; cf. Ogilvie, Richmond ad /oc. ;
Tac. Hist. 4.5 ; Cic. De Offic. 2.1.2 ; Carcopino, op. cit., 124f. There is
evidence, however, that Nero did associate with philosophers, notably the
Stoic Chaeremon from Egypt and the Peripatetic Alexander of Aegae ; Suda
I, 203, ed. Bernhardy. If Agrippina discouraged Nero from philosophical
studies as Suetonius says, Chaeremon's attendance at the court could hard-
ly have been due to her influence ; contra, Morford, Phoenix 22 (1968), 58.
Further, Tac. Ann. 14.16.3 strongly intimates the presence of other
philosophers at Nero's court. Morford, art. cit., 59, suspects, however, that
they were not "permanent members". Cf. Furneaux ad Tac. Ann. ic. Mor-
ford, /.c., suggests that the De Clementia was a means of teaching Nero
publicly what had been impossible privately and cites De Clem. 2.5.2-3asa
possible reply to the attitude of Agrippina evinced in this text.
a cognitione ueterum oratorum Seneca praeceptor, quo diutius in ad-

miratione sui detineret
Seneca’s chief concern was the teaching of rhetoric ; cf. Tac. Ana. 13.2.
The text appears to classify him as an advocate of the so-called 'new style'
of oratory under the Empire which rejected the traditions of the Ciceronian
age in favour of the more vigorous and forceful style particularly associated
with Cassius Severus. For the developments in rhetoric in the first century
see in general M. E. Clarke, Rhetoric at Rome (1953), 100f; A. D.
Leeman, Orationis Ratio (1963) I 219ff ; Sherwin-White, Pliny, 86ff ; Car-
copino, op. cit., 126f ; the comments of G. Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in
the Roman World (1972), 467f on this passage are of little value. For
Seneca's opinion of the liberal arts and educational regimen see Epp. Moral.
88 ; 106.12 ; De Ira 2.21 ; cf. Morford, art. cit., 60f. And for Quintilian's
estimate of Seneca, 10.1.126-31.
itaque ad poeticam pronus

From boyhood, Tac. Amn. 13.3.7, but perhaps with more commitment
from c.59, Tac. Ann. 14.16.1.
itaque
The connective is awkward. The text perhaps means that Nero turned to
poetry because he was not permitted to study philosophy at a serious level ;
cf. similarly Morford, art. cit., 59f. But it may have been Nero's own in-
clination which guided him. The subjects cannot have been mutally ex-
clusive.
carmina libenter ac sine labore composuit

But contrast below, ita multa et deleta... inerant.
nec, ut quidam putant, aliena pro suis edidit

Tacitus, Ann. 14.16.1-2, believed from a personal estimate of the quality
of Nero's poetry that the verses were written collectively by a group of
aspirant poets. Doubtless this is the opinion against which Suetonius here
reacts, and Townend, Latin Biography, 89, suggests a dim recollection by
Suetonius of the Tacitean passage. This, however, may not have been
possible. Syme, Tacitus, 782, presents the belief that the third hexad of the
Annals had not yet been made available when Suetonius wrote the Nero. In
the final analysis the issue is insoluble. Nonetheless, ut quidam putant may
not be here a rhetorical plural, as often, but a reflection of an opinion
widely held from Nero's time on. Suetonius’ inspection of the manuscripts
of Nero appears to refute the former view. See also below.
uenere in manus meas pugillares libellique cum quibusdam notissimis uer-

sibus ipsius chirographo scriptis, ut facile appareret non tralatos aut dictante
aliquo exceptos, sed plane quasi a cogitante atque generante exaratos ; ita
multa et deleta et inducta et superscripia inerant
Tacitus, Ann. 14.16.1-2, claimed to have been familiar with Nero's
poems (species ipsa carminum) but unlike Suetonius, who doubtless took
the opportunity of his tenure of one of the Palatine posts, perhaps the a
studiis, did not see the manuscripts. If Suetonius' appraisal of these is valid,
then his view has to prevail over that of Tacitus on the question of the
authenticity of composition (above) ; cf. H. Bardon, La Littérature latine
inconnue (1956), Il, 124. It is thus difficult to see why Furneaux, ad Tac.
Lc, hesitated over the sound evidence of the manuscripts.
A catalogue of Nero’s poetry, which included epic and dramas as well as

occasional and scurrilous pieces, is provided by Bardon, op. cit., 124 ; 132 ;
137ff ; cf. REL 14 (1936), 337ff; and O. A. W. Dilke, GR 4 (1957), 93ff.
Little of this work has survived ; for the fragments see Morel, Frag. Poet
Lat. Note that Suetonius has no opinion on the quality of Nero's poetry.
Martial, however, 8.70.8, dissented from the verdict of Tacitus.
habuit et pingendi fingendique [maxime] non mediocre studium

Cf. Tac. Ann. 13.3.7 ; Dio Chrysos. Orat. 71.9.
53. Maxime autem popularitate efferebatur, omnium aemulus, qui quoquo

modo animum uulgi mouerent
For a description of Nero's relations, generally favourable, with the
plebs, with emphasis on the provision of food, spectacula, and urban
stability, and the consequent alienation of upper class sentiment, see Z.
Yavetz, Plebs and Princeps (1969), 120ff.
exiit opinio
Ss.53-54 are extremely vague from the viewpoint of sources; note
especially existimaretur, alunt, et sunt qui tradant.
post scaenicos coronas

See above, 138.
nam et luctabatur assidue

Cf. Dio Chrysos. Orat. 71.9.
destinauerat etiam, quia Apollinem cantu, Solem aurigando aequiperare

existimaretur, imitarl et Herculis facta
Though generally unnoticed this text has some bearing on the question of
Nero's religious position, particularly on the subject of oriental theocracy. It
indicates beyond doubt the reasons for Nero’s preoccupations with Apollo
and with solar imagery, preoccupations which increased throughout the
reign, namely his personal interest in music and charioteering (for which
see above, 119ff). Nero's accession was heralded as the beginning of an age
of gold, but the flatteries contained in such texts as Sen. Apoc. 4.1.13ff;
Luc. 1.45ff ; Calp. Sic. Buc. 4.87ff ; 157ff can hardly have originated from
Nero himself. Rather they mirror the attempts of the Senecan dispensation
to identify with the administration of Augustus; Momigliano, 703f ; cf.
above, 71. As the ancestral god of the Iulii, Apollo had been brought into
special prominence by Augustus ; Weinstock, DJ, 13ff ; but as patron of the
arts Apollo was also the deity with which a natural association might
develop on the part of an aspirant musician, so that the established court
propaganda of the early years was perfectly suitable for extension by Nero
even after Seneca's disappearance from the political arena. Thus, the
celebration of Nero as véo; "Hàiog and véog 'AmóAAov (Smallwood,
Documents, nos. 145 ; 146 ; — not new, cf. SIG? 798 for Caligula), the
golden day of Tiridates’ reception (above, 91), the Domus Aurea and.
colossus (above, 169ff, should all be seen as promotions of Apolline
imagery dependent upon music and the chariot ; cf. also Tac. Ann. 14.14.2,
cantus Apollini sacros. 1t was in the context of dramatic performances that
the Augustiani greeted Nero as Apollo in 59 ; Dio 61.20.5 ; Apollo whom
Nero sought after the Hellenic tour ; above, 151 ; his voice which he regar-
ded as god-like ; above, 131 ; and the representation of Apollo Citharoedus
which appeared on the coinage ; above, 152. For statues cf. West, op. cit.,
plate 65 no. 274. At the same time it is questionable to what extent Nero
deliberately cultivated religious elevation of himself. Momigliano, 732,
wrote that in the late years of Nero ''the tendency to deification was
becoming more openly expressed" and Cizek, passím, developing the
position of L'Orange (see above, 175ff ; 180), sees a constant progression
towards theocratic despotism. Yet the recent admonition has been made that
a distinction must be preserved "between the divinity, and the association
with the divine", E. J. Bickerman, 'Consecratio' in Le Culte des souverains
dans l'empire romain, Entretiens sur l'antiquité classique 19 (1973), 7. The
statues of Nero as Apollo must often have been spontaneously produced in
provincial regions, not at the instigation of Nero, and even to offset those
cases where the hand of Nero himself does appear, for instance in the
coinage and the colossus, there remains the decisive fact that ultimate and
formal deification at Rome was refused ; Tac. Ann. 15.74. Association with
the patron, but not absorption, was Nero's aim, as indeed Suetonius’ ter-
minology here suggests: aequiperare and imitari do not connote iden-
tification. And that idea, moreover, was hardly new. Representations of
previous emperors in symbolically divine dress are not at all uncommon. It
was the scale that was different here. Statements to the effect that Nero in-
sisted on worship of himself as the sun-god (e.g.. M. J. Vermaseren,
Mithras, The Secret God [1963], 24) do not seem to be right. Confusion
stems from the association of Sol with Mithras ; cf. Nock, JRS 27 (1937),
= Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (1972), 452ff. The two deities
are often equated or depicted together, but the absence of archaeological

evidence before the second century means that any worship of Mithras at
Rome beforehand must have been minimal. There is little literary evidence
for Mithraism at Rome in the Julio-Claudian period, and the Neronian
material itself suggested only partial, not total initiation ; cf. above, 90.
Furthermore, the worship of Sol has a purely Italian history ; Weinstock,
DJ, 382, and the association with charioteering is indisputable ; cf., e.g.,
Tert. De Spect. 8.1, circus Soli principaliter consecratur. But this has
nothing to do with orientalism, and no more than a dilettantish interest in
Mithraism, as with magicae artes, need be imagined for Nero ; see above,
90. A belief that the interest in Mithras indeed developed from the Apollo-
Sol nexus may be confirmed indirectly from the lack of evidence of interest
in Egyptian cults ; cf. M. Malaise, Les Conditions de pénétration et de dif-
fusion des cultes égyptiens en Italie (1972), 404ff. No doubt solar sym-
bolism and Nero's megalomania were interconnected, but to speak of such
symbolism in theological or theocratic terms (as Beaujeu, La Religion
romaine à l'apogée de l'empire [1955], 46fD is to overstate the case.
For coins from Patrae with the legend ' Herculi Augusto’ and represen-
tations of Nero as Hercules, see Sydenham, The Coinage of Nero (1920),
32. Nero was also greeted as Hercules on his return from Greece ; Dio
63.20.5. L. Thompson, CPh 59 (1964), 147ff, argues for association bet-
ween Nero and Hercules at Luc. 1.45ff.
54. Paridem histrionem occisum ab eo quasi grauem aduersarium

See above, 219.
55. ideoque multis rebus ac locis uetere appellatione detracta nouam indixit
ex suo nomine
There are several examples of renaming procedures : Caesarea Philippi
became Neronias ; Jos. Ant. 20.211 ; Artaxata in Armenia Neroneia ; Dio
63.7.2 ; an Egyptian month became ' Neroneios Sebastos' ; K. Scott, YCS 2
(1931), 201ff ; RE s.v. Nepovetog, and a line of the Acraephia inscription
indicates that the renaming of the Peloponnese was at least considered ;
Holleaux, BCH 12 (1888), 510. It is to be noted, however, that all of these
examples come from the East and that they suggest spontaneous honours
locally conferred on Nero, not that Nero promoted a line of renaming places
after himself in any official manner ; cf. Bickermann, art. cit., 9. There is
thus cause to doubt that Suetonius' statement erat illi aeternitatis ... cupido
provided the reason for the name changes. Stress should in fact be placed
AN HISTORICAL COMMENTARY 29]
on inconsulta. In contrast, it is worth pointing out that the old royal capital
of Pontus Polemoniacus was renamed Neocaesarea in 64 ; cf. above, 113f.
Even so, the principle was not new : eastern cities had been renamed after
emperors since Augustus; cf. Nock, CAH X, 487. And the essentially
hellenistic practice of renaming months continues both before and after
Nero; see below.
mensem quoque Aprilem Neroneum appellauit

In the spate of thanksgivings after the disclosure of the conspiracy of
Piso a proposal was made that mensisque Aprilis Neronis cognomentum ac-
ciperet, April being the month of discovery ; Tac. Ann. 15.74.1. The in-
ference from Tac. Ann. 16.12 of K. Scott, art. cit., 231, that Cornelius Or-
fitus sponsored the proposal, is guesswork. But the change does seem to
have been adopted, at least temporarily ; cf. Tac. Ann. 16.12.3. Note again,
however, that in the Tacitean notice the proposal did not originate with
Nero himself. The emphasis of Suetonius is misplaced. The practice of
celebrating statesmen with honorific months was essentially a hellenistic
procedure ; Weinstock, DJ, 153ff; Scott, art. cit., perhaps overestimating
the attempt to divinise Nero (230). For Roman examples, Suet. Aug. 31.2 ;
Calig. 15.2 ; Domit. 13.3.
destinauerat et Roman Neropolim nuncupare

The text may be a more specific version of the rumour current at the time
of the great fire that Nero wished to found a new city named after himself ;
Tac. Ann. 15.40.3 ; cf. above, 230. Otherwise, in the light of the previous
comments on s.55, the statement must be judged doubtful. A distinction has
to be maintained between Rome and the East. Balland, MEFR 77 (1965),
366, emphasises comparison with the practice of city-founding by
hellenistic kings.
56. Religionum usque quaque contemptor

Suetonius rarely indicates in such formal terms the attitude to religiones
of a princeps. though note Aug. 90 and Tib. 69. No other explicit statement
on Nero's religious outlook exists, though scholars have not been slow to
associate Nero with various supernatural interests ; cf. above, 175ff; 180;
288ff. The question might hinge on the distinction between religio and
superstitio, for which Cic. De Nat. Deor. 1.42.117 is essential : superstitio-
nem... in qua inest timor inanis deorum ... religionem, quae deorum cultu
pio continetur. The text here could mean then that Nero had little interest in
the state religion ; certainly, unlike Augustus or Claudius, he had no official

religious policy ; cf. Beaujeu, op. cit., 54ff. This might then explain the
renunciation of the Dea Syria (below), since through her association with
the worship of Minerva she lost the attraction of other interests such as
those of magicae artes ; above, 90.
Deae Syriae
Nero's attention to the Dea Syria, which must have been shortlived, has
been seen as the reason behind the building of a sanctuary to the goddess by
her devotees on the Janiculum ; Blake, Roman Construction, 62.
hanc mox ita spreuit ut urina contaminaret

Fickleness towards oriental cults is Nero's most characteristic attitude,
not complete uninterest as suggested by R. E. Witt, /sis in the Greco-Roman
Worid (1971), 224. Cf. Plin. NH 30.15-16 ; Cumont, Riv. di Fil. 11
(1933), 147.
57.1 Obiit tricensimo et secundo aetatis anno

The precise year of Nero's birth is difficult to ascertain though 37 is the
accepted view here; see above, 45f. Consequently, death in 68 gives the
thirty-first, not second year of Nero. Confusion results from calculating not
by calendar year but from birthday to birthday. For the most recent
discussion of the evidence see G. V. Summer, Latomus 26 (1967), 418, and
see above, 48f.
die quo quondam Octauiam interemerat

The sources present conflicting accounts of the length of Nero's reign. A
tabular summary appears below, although final and complete reconciliation
is impossible. The usual view gives 9th June as the date of death, the con-
clusion of L. Holzapfel, Rómische Kaiserdaten in Klio 12 (1912), 483ff.
Yet a recent view draws attention to astrological evidence which makes 11th
June possible : the second century author Vettius Valens refers (5.11) to a
horoscope in which Saturn’s position in Virgo in 37 returns on lith June,
68 ; B. W. Reece, The Date of Nero’s Death in AJP 90 (1969), 72ff. For
the death of Octavia see above, 211.
Life Reign
Dio 63.29.3 30 yrs. 9 mths. 13 yrs. 8 mths.

Zonar. 11, 13, 432, 30 yrs. 5 mths. 13 yrs. 8 mths. minus
1-6D 20 days 2 days
Joan. Ant. fr. 92M 30 yrs. 14 yrs. minus 2 mths.
v. 70-74
Hier. Chron. 13 yrs. 7 mths. 28 days
los. BJ 4.491 13 yrs. and 8 days
tamtumque gaudium publice praebuit

Rejoicings at Rome following Nero's final escape are noted at Dio
63.29.1 ; Zonar. 11.13.42 10-20D ; Joann. Antioch. fr. 91 M vv. 74-77.
Cf. also Tac. Hist. 1.4, finis Neronis ut laetus primo gaudentium impetu
fuerat ... T. O. Mabbott, CP 36 (1941), 398f, suggested a suppression of
Neronian coinage at Nicopolis in Epirus in the time of Epictetus. But this
need have nothing to do with the damnatio memoriae and could have been
due to local causes if indeed the suppression was genuine ; cf. M. Crawford,
JRS 60 (1970), 47. Galba, however, certainly seems to have made an at-
tempt to suppress Neronian coinage in Spain ; C. H. V. Sutherland, Num.
Chron.$ 20 (1940), 265f.
plebs pilleata
Cf. Dio; Zonar. /i.c.
et tamen non defuerunt qui per longum tempus uernis aestiuisque floribus
tumulum eius ornarent
Suetonius correctly implies what Tacitus makes explicit, that the reac-
tions to Nero's death were mixed ; see especially Tac. Hist. 1.4 ; cf. 16. The
praetorians had not been anxious to abandon Nero; Tac. Hist. 1.5 ; Otho
was conscious of Nero's popularity with the p/ebs and of the political value
which association with Nero's name might bring ; Tac. Hist. 1.78 ; cf. Plut.
Otho 3 ; M. Gelzer, The Roman Nobility (Eng. trans. 1969), 144 ; while
Vitellius later offered sacrifices in Nero's honour; Tac. Hist. 2.95.
tumulum
See above, 280.
ac modo imagines praetextatas in rostris proferrent

Cf. Tac. Hist. 1.78, et fuere qui imagines Neronis proponerent , Plut.
Otho 3.1.
294 SUETONIUS; LIFE OF NERO
57.2 Vologaesus Parthorum rex

On Vologaesus, c.51/2-79/80, see N. C. Debevoise, A Political History
of Parthia (1937) ; K.-H. Ziegler, Die Beziehungen zwischen Rom und dem
Partherreich (1964).
missis ad senatum legatis de instauranda societate

The context implies that the Parthian delegation left for Rome as soon as
the news of Nero's death had been received, that is in 68. That the set-
tlement of 63, for which see Tac. Ann. 15.27-31, was in fact renewed is
suggested from the reply of Vespasian, still in the East in the midsummer of
69, to another Parthian delegation which brought the offer of a cavalry
squadron, gratiae Vologaeso actae mandatumque ut legatos ad senatum mit-
teret et pacem esse sciret , Tac. Hist. 4.51 ; cf. Suet. Vesp. 6.4 ; Ziegler, op.
cit., 78. Note also Anon. Epit. de Caes. 5.8, hunc (Nero) Persae in tantum
dilexerant, ut legatos mitterent orantes copiam construendi monumenti.
post uiginti annos adulescente me

Thus about 88. The text is important since it introduces a personal
recollection of Suetonius. For its bearing on Suetonius' biography see the
references above, 20 n.39.
extitisset condicionis incertae qui se Neronem esse iactaret

There is strong evidence here for a pseudo-Nero about 88, but notices of
other falsi at earlier dates exist. The evidence is not altogether clear and has
led to some rather pointless debate over the correct number of pretenders,
whether two or three. Tac. Hist. 2.8, ceterorum casus conatusque in con-
textu operis dicemus must mean any number of falsi before 96. Nero was
after all still thought to be alive by some even under Trajan ; Dio Chrysos.
Orat. 21.9-10. Yet it is not the exact number of pretenders, but the
possibility that Nero was alive after 68, and the potential unrest which that
allowed for, that is important. The circumstances of the death can never
have been clearly known except to a very smal! number of people, and those
actually with Nero at the end were themselves quickly dead.
The first pretender appeared in 69, also condicionis incertae, a Bithynian
slave or else an Italian freedman. He was joined by a number of deserters
who hoped for better prospects, and occupied by force the island of Cythnus
in the Cyclades. The danger of the movement, serious enough to cause
distress in Asia and Greece, was eliminated through the actions of Calpur-
nius Asprenas, en route to assume the command of Galatia and Pamphylia
with a naval squadron. Tac. Hist. 2.8-9 ; cf. Dio 64.9.3; Zon. 11.15.45 ;
11-16D.
Under Titus a second pretender appeared, Terentius Maximus, an Asian,
finally seeking refuge with Artabanus of Parthia. Dio 66.19.3b-3c ; Joann.
Antioch. fr. 104M.
The present text would thus indicate a third pretender about 88 in ac-
cordance with the implication of Tac. Hist. 2.8, and perhaps Tac. Hist. 1.2,
mota prope etiam Parthorum arma falsi Neronis ludibrio, can be fitted in
here as support. Some scholars, however, identify the Suetonian fa/sus with
Terentius Maximus, and the parallel between s.57.2, ut uehementer adiutus
et uix redditus sit, and Dio 66.19.3c may indeed be observed as the Par-
thian connection. Yet F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (1964), 214ff, has
pointed to the pattern of a " pseudoroyal progress" which surrounds sundry
pretenders — including the false Neros — which may account for such
similarities of detail. More positively, it seems implausible that Suetonius,
writing from first-hand knowledge, would have made an error of some eight
years. For discussion of the whole issue, see Millar, op. cit., 214ff; Syme,
Tacitus, 518 ; S. J. Bastomsky, The Emperor Nero in Talmudic Legend in
Jewish Quarterly Review n.s. 59 (1969), 321ff ; P. A. Gallivan, The False
Neros ; a Reexamination in Historia 22 (1973), 364(T ; Ziegler, op. cit., 81.
INDEX OF NAMES
Acilius Aviola, M'., 208. Antonius Polemo, M., 282.

Acratus, 172, 189, 194. Antonius Primus, M., 262.
Acte, 160, 161, 163, 167. Aper, M., 262.
Aegialus, 189. Appuleia Varilla, 238.
Aelia Catella, 82. Aquillius Regulus, M., 223.
Aelia Paetina, 213. Argentaria Polla, 187.
Aelius Seianus, L., 56, 207. Arruntius, L., 43.
Acmilius Lamia, L.. 185. Artabanus, 295.
Aemilius Lepidus, M. (cos. 46 B.C.), 88. Asconius Labeo, 50, 51.
Aemilius Lepidus, M.. 49. Asinius Pollio, C., 38, 80.
Aemilius Scaurus, M., 29. Augustus (Octavian), 27, 37, 38, 39, 40,
Afranius, L., 84. 42, 43, 61, 71, 72, 73, 75, 80, 87, 97,
Afranius Burrus, Sex., 63, 72, 74, 94, 112, 99, 108, 109, 113, 150, 184, 193, 238.
113, 132, 161, 163, 167, 168, 203, 205, 288. 289, 292.
210, 217, 218. Aurelius Cotta, 76.
Agermus (Agerinus), 203, 205.
Albucilla, 43. Barea Soranus, Q. Marcius, 188.
Alexander, 118, 119, 285. Beryllus, 285.
Alexander Acgeates, 286. Blitius Catulinus, 261.
Alexandria, 50, 215, 280. Boudicca, 110, 190, 236.
Anicetus, 167, 202, 203, 212, 285.
Annaeus Cornutus, L., 152, 261. Caecilius Metellus, L., 27.
Annaeus Lucanus, M., 87, 187, 197, 222. Caecina Alienus, A., 256.
Annaeus Mela, 187. Caecina Tuscus, C., 114, 115, 195, 215,
Annaeus Seneca, L. (elder), 56. 216, 262.
Annaeus Seneca, L. (younger), 44, 56, 57, Caedicia, 261.
60, 62, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, Caesellius Bassus, 183, 184, 186, 239.
74, 78, 85, 108, 112, 113, 121, 146, Caesennius Maximus, 261.
152, 161, 163, 167, 190, 195, 203, 205, Caesennius Paetus, L., 237.
206, 210, 217, 218, 234, 285, 286, 289. Caesius Martialis, L., 91.
Annius Pollio, 221, 261. Caligula (emperor), 43, 45, 47, 48, 51, 56,
Annius Vinicianus, 166, 221, 255. 57, 71, 80, 81, E12, 115, 116, 166, 168,
Anteius Rufus, P., 187, 188. 174, 225, 226, 228, 289.
Antistius Sosianus, 187, 238, 239. Calpurnius Bibulus, M.. 33.
Antistius Vetus, L., 91, 192. Calpurnius Piso, C., 77, 99, 139, 189, 217,
Antonia, 40, 42, 201. 220, 255.
Antonius, M. (cos. 44 B.C.), 37, 38, 39, Calpurnius Piso, L.. 91.
40. Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus, L., 54.
Antonius, M. (orator), 32. Calvia Crispinilla, 162, 189.
Antonius Felix, 95. Caninius Rebilus, C., 98.
Antonius Pallas, M., 55, 94. 186, 187, 189, Caracalla (emperor), 77, 95.
201. 218, 219. Carrinas Secundus, 194.
298 INDEX OF NAMES
Cassius Asclepiodotus, 188, 261. Domitia, 51, 186, 195, 207.

Cassius Longinus, C. (praet. 44 B.C.), 37, Domitia Lepida, 43, 49, 50, 51, 57, 58,
223. 185, 186, 207, 285.
Cassius Longinus, C. (cos. A.D. 30), 187, Domitian (emperor), 77, 80, 86, 87, 92, 95,
223, 224, 225, 261. 97, 102, 136, 160, 180, 224, 232, 278.
Cassius Severus, 286. Domitius Afer, Cn., 99.
Celer. 172, 182. Domitius Ahenobarbus, Cn. (cos. 192
Celer, P.. 78, 94. B.C), 27, 28.
Cestius, N., 91. Domitius Ahenobarbus, Cn. (cos. 162
Chaeremon, 286. B.C), 28.
Chosroes, 180. Domitius Ahenobarbus, Cn. (cos. 122
Claudia Antonia, 209, 213, 214. B.C), 27, 28, 30, 31.
Claudia Augusta, 213. Domitius Ahenobarbus, Cn. (cos. 96 B.C.),
Claudius (emperor), 44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32.
52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, Domitius Ahenobarbus, Cn. (cos. 32 B.C.),
62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 71, 75, 80, 82, 25, 27, 36, 37, 38.
95. 97, 100, 101, 102, 107, 108, 111, Domitius Ahenobarbus, L. (cos. 54 B.C.),
112, 114, 141, 161, 166, 195, 196, 197, 32, 33, 34.
198, 199, 208, 214, 219, 224, 245, 263, Domitius Ahenobarbus, 1. (cos. 16 B.C.),
292. 40, 41, 42, 185.
Claudius Balbillus, Ti, 219, 220, 247. Domitius Ahenobarbus, L. (cos. A.D. 32),
Claudius Caesar Britannicus, Ti., 44, 50, 26, 42, 43, 44, 48, 49, 50, 51, 69.
52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57. 59. 62, 64, 111, Domitius Calvinus, Cn. (cos. 332 B.C.),
160, 168, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 206, 23, 24.
209, 215, 253, 263. Domitius Calvinus, Cn. (cos. 53 B.C.). 24.
Claudius Dinippus, Ti, 147. Domitius Calvinus Maximus, Cn. (cos. 283
Claudius Doryphorus, Ti., 164, 165, 167, B.C), 24.
168, 218. Domitius Calvinus, M. (praet. 80 B.C.), 24,
Claudius Spiculus, Ti., 166, 275. 38.
Cleopatra, 39, 41. Domitius Corbulo, Cn., 14, 89, 119, 166,
Clodius Macer, L., 260, 266, 271. 188, 221, 222, 237, 260.
Cluvius Rufus, 17, 18, 99, 133. Domitius Phaon, L.. 272, 274, 275, 276.
Cluvidienus Quietus, 261. 280.
Commodus (emperor), 176, 177. Domitius Tullus, Cn., 99.
Comelius Lentulus, Cossus, 92. Drusus Caesar, 61.
Cornelius Lentulus Gaetulicus, Cn., 49, 50.
Cornelius Marcellus, L., 256. Egloge, 50, 215, 280.
Comelius (Scipio) Salvidienus Orfitus, Ser., Egnatia Maximilla, 187.
222, 223, 291. Epaphroditus, 76, 272, 276, 278.
Comelius Sulla, L., 30. Epicharis, 187.
Comelius Sulla Felix, Faustus, 213. Epictetus, 293.
Cornelius Tacitus, 13, 16, 17. Eprius Marcellus, T. Clodius, 224.
Cossutianus Capito, 224. Eucaerus, 211.
Cremutius Cordus, 238.
Curiatius Maternus, 34. Fabius Maximus, Q., 98.
Curtius Rufus, 97, 167. Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus. Q.. 30. 31.
Fabius Persicus, Paullus, 48.
Datus, 239, 240. Fabius Rusticus, 17, 18.
Demetrius Poliorcetes, 116. Fabius Valens, 82.
Didius Gallus, A., 11I, 112, 113, 167. Fabricius Veiento, A., 94, 136, 262.
Diodorus, 150. Faenius Rufus, L., 132.
INDEX OF NAMES 299
Falanius, 238. Iulius Vindex, C., 118, 189, 193, 240, 242,
Famulus (Fabullus), 179. 244, 245, 246, 249, 250, 251, 253, 255,
' Fannius, C., 18 n.29. 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 262, 264, 268,
Flavius Scaevinus, 261. 271.
Fonteius Agrippa, C., 91. Iunius Brutus, M., 37.
Fonteius Capito, 259. Iunius Gallio, L., 187.
Iunius Silanus, L., 223.
Gaius Caesar, 43, 58. Iunius Silanus, M., 29.
Galba (emperor), 51, 54, 118, 142, 167,
188, 241, 248, 251, 254, 255, 256, 257, Labienus, T., 30.
259, 260, 261, 262, 270, 271, 272, 273, Laelius Balbus, D., 43.
276, 279, 293. Larcius Lydus, A., 134, 149, 188.
Galerius Trachalus, P., 263, 264. Licinius Crassus, L., 27, 32.
Gallus, P., 261. Licinius Crassus, M., 33, 36.
Germanicus Caesar, 43, 73, 99, 141. Licinius Lucullus, L., 280.
Glitius Gallus, P., 187, 261. Licinius Mucianus, L., 259, 260.
Graecinus Laco, P., 167. Livineius Regulus, 262.
Granius Marcellus, M., 238. Lucius Caesar, 58.
Lucusta, 198, 199. 200, 206.
Hadrian (emperor), 17, 21, 72, 113, 170
n.8, 177, 181.
Maecenas, C., 234.
Halotus, 196.
Manilius, C., 32.
Haterius Antoninus, Q., 76.
Manilius Vopiscus, M., 106.
Helius, 141, 142, 226, 272.
Memmius Regulus, P., 284.
Helvidius Priscus, C., 261.
Menecrates, 122, 166.
Herodes Atticus, 116.
Munatius Plancus, L.. 41.
Musonius Rufus, C., 116, 261.
Icelus, 276, 279.
Isidorus, 239, 240.
[ulia Agrippina, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, Narcissus, 272.
52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68, Neophytus, 272, 276.
69, 76, 111, 112, 113, 124, 154, 161, Nero (emperor), accession of, 62-66, 66-
162, 163, 167, 168, 186, 188, 195, 197, 71; administrative measures of, 74-77,
198, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 101-110, 110-114, 190-194; ancestry
207, 210, 215, 217, 239, 240, 269, 285, of, 23-44; appearance of, 281-285; and
286. Britain, 110-113; as builder, 100-101,
Iulia Livilla, 56. 115-116, 181-182; childhood and early
Iulius Agrippa, 261. life of, 44-62, 285-288; and Christians,
Iulius Alexander, Ti., 216, 259, 260, 271, 103-105; consulships of, 91-92; demise
273. and death of, 240-281; and Domus
lulius Altinus, 261. Aurea, 169-181; exiles under, 261-262;
lulius Caesar, C. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, and finances, 165-168, 182-190; and
73, 75, 116, 139, 193, 223. great fire, 226-235; jurisdiction by, 77-
Iulius Cottius, M. 114. 79. 93-96; and maiestas, 237-238;
Iulius Florus, 250. marriages of, 61-62, 208-213; and mur-
Iulius Hyginus, C., 18 n. 29. ders, 195-226; music and charioteering,
Julius Montanus, C., 155, 156. 119-153; reception of Tiridates by, 89-
Julius Sacrovir, 250. 9]; and senate, 96-99. spectacula under,
lulius Secundus, 262. 80-91; and tour of Greece, 114-117,
lulius Vestinus, L., 208. 137-148; Suetonius’ presentation of, 14-
Julius Vestinus Atticus, M., 194, 208, 209, 21. 119-121, 148-149, 153-155, 194-
217, 225. 195, 240-243, 273-274, 281-283.
300 INDEX OF NAMES
Nerva (emperor), 72, 99, 166. 200, 207, 208, 209, 211, 212. 213. 214,
Nonius Calpurnius Asprenas. L., 294. 215.
Novatilla, 187. Porcia, 37.
Novius Priscus, 261. Porcius Cato, M., 36, 37.
Nymphidius Sabinus, C.. 132, 161, 273. Porcius Septimius, 259.
Proculus, 108.
Obultronius Sabinus, 256. Pythagoras, 164, 165, 272.
Octavia, 62, 168, 201, 207, 209, 210, 211,
212, 292. Rubellius Blandus, C., 185.
Ofonius Tigellinus, 99, 117, 132, 134, 157, Rubellius Plautus, 185, 186, 201.
158, 159, 162, 166, 168, 187, 211, 212. Rubria, 154. 160.
Ollius, T., 207. Rubrius, 238.
Ostorius Scapula, P., 111, 112. Rubrius Gallus, 264.
Otho (emperor), 65. 181. 189. 204, 208, Rufrius Crispinus, 195, 207, 208, 215.
256, 260. 293. Rufrius Crispinus (child), 214, 215.
Paconius Agrippinus, Q.. 261. Sallustius Crispus, C., 280.

Paetus, 262. Sallustius Crispus Passienus, C., 50, 51.
Palpellius Clodius Quirinalis, P.. 94. Satrius Secundus, 43.
Pammenes, 143. Scribonii (Scribonius Rufus, Scribonius
Paneros, 168. Proculus), 188, 221. 222. 260.
Pans, 219. Septicius Clarus, C., 20.
Patrobius, 272. Septimius Severus (emperor). 77, 175.
Pedanius Salinator, Cn., 106. Sertorius Macro, Naevius, 43.
Pegasus, 97. Servaeus, Q., 43.
Periander, 116. Severus, 172, 182.
Petinus, 272. Servilius Nonianus, M., 272.
Petronius. 192, 234, 261. Silia, 261.
Petronius Priscus, 261. Silius Italicus, Ti. Catius Asconius, 263.
Petronius Turpulianus, P., 99. 166. Sporus, 154. 161, 162. 164, 165, 167. 272,
Pharasmanes, 118. 276.
Plautia Urgulanitla, 214. 215. Staius Murcus, L., 38.
Plautius, A., 214, 215. Statilia Messalina, 160, 208, 209, 213.
Plautius Lateranus, 78, 215. Statilius Taurus, T. (cos. 37 B.C.), 208.
Plautius Pulcher, P.. 214. Statilius Taurus, T. (cos. A.D. 44), 208.
Plautius Silvanus. A., 195. 215. Subrius Flavus, 121, 195, 221, 228 n.22.
Plautius Silvanus Aelianus, Ti.. 215. 267.
Plinius Secundus, C., 17, 18. Suetonius Tranquillus, C., 13-21; see
Plutarch (Mestrius Plutarchus, L.), 18 n. ‘Nero’.
29, 147. Suillius Rufus, P., 78, 262.
Polemo, 113. Sulpicius Asper, 221.
Polyclitus, 94, 189, 272.
Pompeia Paulina, 187. Tampius Flavianus, L., 259.
Pompeius, Sex., 38. Tarquitius Priscus, M., 262.
Pompeius Magnus, Cn. (cos. 70 B.C). 33, Terentius Lentinus, 262.
34, 35, 36, 119, 269, 280. Terentius Maximus, 295.
Pompeius Magnus, Cn.. 213. Terentius Varro, M., 18 n.29.
Pompeius Silvanus, M., 259. Terpnus, 122.
Pomponius Atticus, T.. 18 n. 29. Thrasea Paetus, P. Clodius, 131. 146, 188.
Pomponius Secundus. P.. 167. 224, 225.
Poppaea Sabina, 95, 134, 160. 161. 168. Thrasyllus, 63.
INDEX OF NAMES 301
Tiberius (emperor), 41, 44, 45, 66, 71, 73, Velleius Paterculus, L., 106.
75, 113, 141, 168, 184, 185, 228, 238, Verania, 167.
380. Veranius, Q. (cos. II A.D. 49), 59, 83, 110,
Tiridates, 89, 90, 125, 135, 139, 165, 166, 111, 112, 113, 167.
172, 173, 206, 289. Veranius Q., 43.
Titinius Capito, Cn, 18 n.29. Verginius Flavus, 261.
Titus (emperor), 86, 99, 295. Verginius Rufus, L., 133, 240, 255, 256,
Trajan (emperor), 66, 69, 72, 93, 96, 238, 257, 259, 260, 264, 271.
294. Vespasian (emperor), 65, 95, 97, 99, 116,
Trebellius Maximus, M., 259. 122, 145, 146, 160, 168, 177, 179, 224,
Tullius Cicero, M., 32, 58, 98, 107. 231, 259, 260, 261, 294.
Vibius Marsus, C., 43.
Valeria Messalina, 45, 50, 51, 52, 57, 62, Vibius Secundus, L., 262.
78. Vinicius, M., 41.
Valerius Asiaticus, D., 245. Vinius Rufinus, T.. 262.
Valerius Fabianus, 262. Vipsanius Agrippa, M., 88, 99, 232.
Valerius Messala Corvinus, M., 76, 91, 92. Vitellius (emperor), 73, 293.
Valerius Messala Rufus, M., 18 n.29. Vitellius, L., 43.
Vatinius, 115, 128, 129, 189. Vologaesus, 237, 294.
Vatinius, P., 33, 34, Volusius Proculus, 202.
Vedius Pollio, P., 225.
Velleius Paterculus, C., 106. Zenodorus, 175.

(Collection Latomus 157) Keith R. Bradley - Suetonius' Life of Nero - An Historical Commentary-Latomus (1978)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

(Collection Latomus 157) Keith R. Bradley - Suetonius' Life of Nero - An Historical Commentary-Latomus (1978)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

COLLECTION LATOMUS

SUETONIUS’ LIFE OF NERO

La revue Latomus, fondée en 1937 par M.-A. Kugener, L. Herrmann

Montant de l'abonnement au tome XXXVII (1978) :

Abonnement ordinaire : 1250 FB.

Port et expédition en sus.

C.C.P. 000-0752646-23 de la Société d'études latines de

Pour l'achat des tomes | à XXI. s'adresser à:

ARGENTINE : M. le Prof. Fr. Novoa, Laprida, Graxpe-Bretacne: M. Je Prof. Fergus

IMPRIMERIE UNIVERSA, B-9200 WeETTEREN (BELGIQUE)

Suetonius’ Life of Nero

ABBREVIATIONS ... liseha 9

My purpose in the composition of this study has been to provide the

REG Revue des études grecques

C. Suetonius Tranquillus has received comparatively little attention from

The first essential is to establish some idea of Suetonius’ attitude towards

troduction on the Domitii Ahenobarbi — in part the result of Nero's in-

(10) Cf. below, 46; 235f; 248.

ply concerned with the demonstration of character illustrated from selective

coin-legends has been interpreted to support a larger hypothesis that

While the genres of biography and history require different points of

It was observed above that the arrangement of a Suetonian biography

s.8 : accession and immediate sequel

The longest subdivision is clearly that on the non-commendable acta and

The career of Suetonius is not an important subject; the question of

(37) J. CRoo&. Suetonius "Ab Epistulis" in PCPAS 4 (1956/57), 181. 20.

(42) Above, 17.

Sections 1-5: The Ancestry of Nero

Suetonius opens the biography with an account of Nero's ancestors, the

1.1 Ex gente Domitia duae familiae claruerunt

Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, cos. 192 B.C.

Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, cos. 162 B.C.

Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, cos. 122 B.C.

L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, cos. 54 B.C.

Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, cos. 32 B.C.

L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, cos. A.D. 16.

L. Domitius Ahenobarbus - NERO

Note: This stemma is not intended to be complete, but simply to serve as a

defeated at sea while conveying troops to Philippi, but celebrated a triumph

A<h> enobarbi auctorem originis itemque cognominis habent L. Domitium,

ut e nigro rutilum aerique adsimilem capillum redderent

quod insigne mansit

1.2 functi autem consulatibus septem

triumpho censuraque duplici

inter patricios adlecti

ac ne praenomina quidem ulla praeterquam Gnaei et Luci usurparunt

The first Ahenobarbus to appear in the consular fasti, the consul of

2.1 atauus eius Cn. Domitius

in tribunatu pontificibus offensior, quod alium quam se in patris sui locum

ius sacerdotum subrogandorum a collegiis ad populum transtulit

at In consulatu Allobrogibus Aruernisque superatis elephanto per prouinciam

C. Caesarem abeuntem consulatu, quem aduersus auspicia legesque gessisse

ab exercitibus Gallicis retrahere temptauit

As a consular candidate for 55 B.C. with the triumvirate weakening.

successorque ei per factionem nominatus

principio ciuilis belli ad Corfinium captus est

2.3 unde dimissus

Massiliensis obsidione laborantis cum aduentu suo confirmasset, repente

acieque demum Pharsalica occubuit

uir neque satis constans

in desperatione rerum mortem timore appetitam ita expauit, ut haustum

consultante autem Cn. Pompeio de mediis ac neutram partem sequentibus

distinction as an admiral first in the war between Antony and the