From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68

by H. H. Scullard

  5 JUDICIAL PAPYRUS. See Smallwood, op. cit., n. 367, and cf. Scramuzza, op. cit., 110 ff. [p. 245]

  6 PROCURATORS. On their functions see Tac. Ann., xii. 60, and F. Millar, JRS, 1964, 180 ff., and P. A. Brunt, Latomus, 1966, 461 ff. [p. 245]

  7 FRUMENTATIONES. Claudius also, according to the usual view, transferred the distribution of corn from the senatorial praefecti frumenti dandi to the imperial praefectus annonae, and the cost of the frumentationes from the Aerarium to the Fiscus. This would lighten the Senate’s burden, but would increase the emperor’s popularity and make the dole appear as an imperial gift. G. E. F. Chilver, however, has argued (Amer. Journ. Phil. 1949, 7 ff.) that the praefecti frumenti dandi did not disappear and that in this sphere the princeps and Senate had in fact co-operated more closely than is generally believed from the time of Augustus onwards. (This view depends in part on the dating of the careers of two such praefecti: on this see also H. G. Pflaum, Historia, ii, 1954, 431 ff.) Claudius established an efficient organization for the distribution of the corn-dole at the Porticus Minucia in Rome. On the frumentationes see D. van Berchem, Les distributions de blé et d’argent à la plèbe romaine sous l’empire (1939) and G. Rickman, The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome (1980). The latter (73 ff., 213 ff.) takes the view that the burden of financing the corn supply was more gradually shared by emperor and Senate rather than abruptly transferred from the Senate to Claudius; the problem was the relationship of the state and the individual rather than that of Senate and emperor. [p. 245]

  8 PALLAS. On his career and influence see S. I. Oost, AJP, 1958, 113 ff. On Narcissus see J. Melmoux, Stud. Class., 1975, 61 ff. [p. 246]

  9 THE HARBOUR AT OSTIA. Traces of Claudius’ works survive and are revealed by airphotography: see J. Bradford, Ancient Landscapes (1957), 248 ff. and pls. 60 and 61. See further, R. Meiggs, Roman Ostia2 (1973). [p. 248]

  10 CLAUDIUS AND THE ALEXANDRINE JEWS. On Gaius’ death fresh rioting broke out in Alexandria between Greeks and Jews (see p. 241f.) and further deputations waited on the new emperor. Claudius finally sent a letter to the Alexandrians, which is both firm and impartial: in effect he tells both Jews and Greeks to keep the peace and mind their own affairs: he refused the Jewish request for full citizen rights in Alexandria and he told the Greeks that he would not tolerate their attacks on the Jews: ‘I tell you once and for all that if you do not put an end to this ruinous and obstinate mutual enmity, I shall be forced to show you what a benevolent emperor can be when turned by righteous indignation.’ For the full text of this interesting and important document see Smallwood, Documents, n. 370; translation in Lewis and Reinhold, Rn. Civ. II, 366 ff. In A.D. 53 there was further trouble: according to the ‘Acts of Isodore and Lampon’ (see p. 242), Claudius heard a law-suit between these two anti-Jewish leaders and Agrippa II; the two men were put to death and were canonized as anti-Semitic nationalist martyrs. [p. 249]

  11 ‘IMPULSORE CHRESTO.’ Suetonius [Claud. 25) records: ‘Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit’ (cf. Acts, xviii, 2, on the expulsion). It is possible to believe that Chrestus was an unknown Jewish agitator (which is what Suetonius himself may have thought, but he may not have fully understood his source), but the identification with Jesus Christ is much more reasonable. Knowledge of Christianity may have reached the Jewish community in Rome and led to internal dissensions: in that sense Christ will have been the cause of the trouble.

  Another problem arises with the imperial rescript found near Nazareth which threatens those who violate tombs with the unprecedently harsh penalty of death. The date of this inscription (see Smallwood, Documents, n. 377) might be Claudian and the suggestion has been made that because of these Jewish disturbances Claudius made some inquiries which revealed the anti-Christian version of the Resurrection, i.e. that the disciples had broken into the tomb and stolen the body of Jesus (cf. St. Matthew, xxviii, 12–15), and that Claudius then ordered copies of this rescript to be set up in Nazareth and Galilee to prevent similar troubles. For a discussion of the problems involved see A. Momigliano, Claudius, 35 ff. and F. de Zulueta, JRS, 1932, 184 ff. If the Claudian date for the document is not accepted, any connexion with the Resurrection is improbable. F. de Visscher (Nouv. Clio, 1953, 18 ff.) argues that the last four lines which threaten the death-penalty were added privately by the owner of the tomb, while J. H. Oliver (Cl. Phil., 1954, 180 ff.) suggests that they were added by a local Roman authority who was not conversant with Roman practice. See also de Visscher, Le droit des tombeaux romains (1963), 161 ff. [p. 249]

  11a MAURETANIA. On the annexation of Mauretania see D. Fishwick, Historia, 1971, 467 ff. [p. 250]

  12 THE VOLUBILIS INSCRIPTION. See Smallwood, Documents n. 407. [p. 251]

  13 THE ANNAUNIAN INSCRIPTION. See Smallwood, Documents, n. 368 (= ILS, 206); translation, Lewis and Reinhold, Rn. Civ. II, 130 f. [p. 252]

  14 THE LYONS TABLET. Text in Smallwood n. 369; translation, Lewis and Reinhold, op. cit., 133 ff. Tacitus’ version is in Annals xi, 23–5. For a recent comparison of the two versions see K. Wellesley, Gr. and R., 1954, 13 ff. For a discussion of some of the problems raised by this document and for Claudius’ policy about citizenship in general see A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Citizenship, 181 ff. [p. 252]

  15 british tribes. A valuable source of evidence for the local dynasties in the period before the Roman conquest is coinage (and their widespread use of coinage is in itself proof of their increasing civilization and trade); see D. Allen, Archaeologia, 1944, and Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain (ed. S. S. Frere, 1960), 97–308. On Camulodunum see C. F. C. Hawkes, Reports of Research Com. of Soc. of Antiquaries, xiv (1947), M. R. Hull, ibid. xx [1958]. Also C. E. Stevens, in Aspects of Archaeology in Britain (1951) and S. S. Frere, Britannia (1967), chs. 1–4. [p. 252]

  16 THE CONQUEST OF BRITAIN. On Roman Britain in general see R. G. Collingwood, Roman Britain and the English Settlements2 (1937); P. Salway, Roman Britain (1981); I. A. Richmond, Roman Britain (1955); S. S. Frere, Britannia2 (1978); and, a brief sketch, H. H. Scullard, Roman Britain: Outpost of the Empire (1979). For the Claudian conquest, see Frere, op. cit., ch. 5; G. Webster and D. R. Dudley, The Conquest of Roman Britain, A.D. 43–57 (1966), a popular work. The earliest Roman fort found at Valkenburg near Leyden in Holland may have been a supplybase for Claudius’ British expedition: see JRS, 1952, 129. For a photograph of the defences at Rutupiae see JRS, 1929, pl. xvii (cf. 1931, p. 246). On the battle of the Medway see A. R. Burn, History, 1953, 105 ff.; it may have been fought near Rochester. The career of Cogidumnus has been studied by A. A. Barrett, Britannia, 1979, 227 ff., in the light of the view of J. E. Bogaers, id., 243 ff., that the broken stone of the famous inscription (Collingwood and Wright, Rom. Inscr. Brit., n. 91) had been misread and that Cogidumnus was in fact described as ‘great king of Britain’ rather than as ‘king and legate of Augustus in Britain’ – ‘REG.MAGN.BRIT.’ rather than ‘R.LEGAT.AVG. IN BRIT.’. The inscription gives ‘R.I [… .] GN–BRIT’. For the attribution of the Fosse Way frontier to Plautius rather than to Ostorius Scapula see G. Graham, Arch. Journ., 1958, 49 ff. On Queen Cartimandua see the article by I. A. Richmond, JRS, 1954, 43 ff. On the excavations at Maiden Castle, where the skeletons show the savage effects of Roman weapons, see R. E. M. Wheeler, Reports of Research Com. of Soc. of Ant. xii (1943). On Hod Hill see JRS, 1955, p. 141; I. A. Richmond and others, Hod Hill, II (1968). For the early occupation of Lincoln see JRS, 1949, 57 ff.; 1956, 22, D. F. Petch, Arch. Journ., 1960, 40 ff.; and Kingsholm at Gloucester, JRS, 1942, 39 ff. and 1943, 15 ff., and I. A. Richmond and H. E. O’Neil, Trans. Bristol Glos. Arch. Soc., 1962, 14 ff., 1965, 15 ff. On the length of Vespasian’s service in Britain see D. E. Eichholz, Britannia, 1972, 149 ff. On the temple of Claudius at Camulodunum see D. Fishwick, Britannia, 1972, 164 ff., who advances the unorthodox suggestion that under Claudius there may have been only an altar to Roma and Augustus, the temple being constructed only after Claudius’ death. [p. 255]

  17 SOURCES FOR NERO (A.D. 54
–68). The chief literary sources are Tacitus, Annals xiii–xvi (to A.D. 66 only); Suetonius, Nero (commentaries by B. H. Warmington (1977) and K. R. Bradley (1978)); Dio Cassius, lxi–lxiii. Documents: E. M. Smallwood, Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius and Nero (1967). Coins: works cited in ch. XI, n. 1.

  Modern works: B. W. Henderson, The Life and Principate of the Emperor Nero (1903); M. P. Charlesworth, JRS, 1950, 69 ff.; M. A. Levi, Nerone e i suoi tempi (1950); J. Bishop, Nero (1964): B. H. Warmington, Nero (1969); M. Grant, Nero (1970). [p. 256]

  18 THE QUINQUENNIUM NERONIS. On the meaning of this phrase see J. G. C. Anderson, JRS, 1911, 173 ff., and F. A. Lepper, JRS, 1957, 95 ff.; the latter believes that it was ben trovato. O. Murray, Historia, 1965, 41 ff., attributes the phrase to Arulenus Rusticus, the biographer of Thrasea Paetus; the former wished to explain why Thrasea, later Nero’s enemy, had at first co-operated with him. J. G. F. Hind (Historia, 1971, 488 ff.) attributes the phrase to A.D. 60–65, while M. K. Thornton (ibid., 1973, 570 ff.) applies it to Nero’s last years. [p. 256]

  19 AGRIPPINA, SENECA AND BURRUS. For a defence of Agrippina against the charge of having poisoned Claudius see G. Bagnani, Phoenix, 1946, 15 ff. Her decline and fall can be traced dramatically in the coinage. At first her portrait dominated it (see p. 257), then it appeared as the remoter of two jugate busts, then it was banished to the reverse, and finally disappeared. Cf. C. H. V. Sutherland, Coinage in Rom. Imp. Policy, 153 ff. The fact that Agrippina could at first control the mint types shows the de facto meaning of the restoration of coinage to the Senate. On Seneca see ch. XVI, n. 7; A. Garzetti, From Tiberius to the Antonines (1974), 607 ff. On Burrus see W. C. McDermott, Latomus, 1949, 229 ff., and D. Gillis, Parola del Passato, 1963, 5 ff. A recent inscription from Amisus in Pontus (A.D. 63–65) mentions Nero Poppaea and Britannicus and may suggest official acceptance of Nero’s version of Britannicus’ death: see L’Année Epigr. 1959, 224, and L. Robert, Rev. Étud. Gr., 1958, 329. On the question of heirs and rivals of Nero see R. S. Rogers, TAPA, 1955, 190 ff. On the place of Agrippina’s murder see R. Katzoff, Historia, 1973, 72 ff. [p. 257]

  19a FINANCE AND CORN SUPPLY. On Nero’s fiscal policy see M. K. Thornton, Aufstieg, II, ii (1975), 149 ff. On the African corn-supply see B. Gallotta, Rendiconti dell’ Ist. Lombardo, 1975, 28 ff. [p. 259]

  20 NERO ARTIFEX. See M. P. Charlesworth, JRS, 1950, 69 ff. On one aspect note also J. M. C. Toynbee, Cl. Qu., 1942, 83 ff. See also H. Bardon, Rev. Étud. Lat., 1936, 337 ff., on Nero’s poetry. On Artifex see C. E. Manning, Gr. and R., 1975, 164 ff., on the Augustales C. Gatti, Cent. Rich. Doc. Ant. Class., 1976–77, 83 ff., on Nero’s popularity L. Garazzi, Atti Ist. Veneto, 1975–76, 421 ff. [p. 259]

  21 NERO CITHAROEDUS. On the coinage of 64–66 Nero is depicted as Nero–Apollo, the divine musician playing a cithara: see Sutherland, op. cit., 1970 and pl. XIV, 6. [p. 260]

  21a TIGELLINUS. T. K. Roper, Historia, 1979, 346 ff., regards Tigellinus as less powerful or terrible than as generally depicted, and as having connections with Seneca. [p. 260]

  22 THE DOMUS AUREA. See J. Ward Perkins, Antiquity, 1956, 209 ff., and A. Boethius, The Golden House of Nero (1960), ch. 3. [p. 261]

  23 POPPAEA. On her alleged Jewish tendencies (doubtfully based on Josephus, Ant. Jud. 20. 189–196) see E. M. Smallwood, Journ. Theol. Studies, 1959, 329 ff. [p. 261]

  24 THE CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION. See especially Tacitus, Ann. xv, 44. The legal basis of the persecution has formed the subject of endless discussion. The three main views are (1) that a general law was passed which forbade the practice of the Christian religion, (2) that the Christians were punished without the usual forms of trial by ordinary magistrates who exercised their powers of coercitio, i.e. police action to enforce public order, and (3) the allegation of some specific charge, as treason or illegal assembly. The first view is not now much in favour. In line with Roman policy to the Bacchanalian cult and Druidism, which were checked only because of the crimes that they provoked, it may be that Christianity was proscribed by magisterial edict because of its supposed inherent flagitia, i.e. admission of the nomen would expose a man to magisterial coercitio and the magistrate would then through the normal process of cognitio seek to establish a flagitium, whether incendiarism, magic or cannibalism. On this view no general law was passed against Christianity under Nero that would affect provincial governors. For general discussions of the problem see A. N. Sherwin-White, Journ. Theol. Studies, 1952, 199 ff.; F. W. Clayton, Cl. Qu., 1947, 81 ff.; J. Beaujeu, L’incendie de Rome en 64 et les Chrétiens (1960); G. E. M. de Ste Croix, Past and Present, 1963, 6 ff., 1964, 28 ff.; A. N. Sherwin-White, ibid., 1964, 23 ff. (these articles by Sherwin-White and de Ste Croix are reprinted in Studies in Ancient Society, edited by M. I. Finley, 1974, 210 ff.); W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (1965), 161 ff.; T. D. Barnes, JRS, 1968, 32 ff. [p. 261]

  25 ST. PETER IN ROME. For a brief discussion of the evidence for the view that St. Peter was one of Nero’s victims see J. Lowe, Saint Peter (1956). Recent excavations under the Basilica of St. Peter’s in the Vatican City have neither proved nor disproved the tradition that St. Peter was buried under this Church beside the site of the Circus of Nero where he is alleged to have perished. But they have revealed that below the modern church and below the Basilica that Constantine built (now beneath it) there was a large Roman cemetery and that here stood a martyr-shrine to St. Peter which is as old as c. A.D. 160 and was the one seen by a priest named Gaius soon after A.D. 200 (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. ii, 25, 6, 7). Whether it was a tomb or a cenotaph is not known, but it is clear that the Christian community in Rome about a hundred years after St. Peter’s death connected this site with him. See J. Toynbee and J. Ward Perkins, The Shrine of St. Peter (1956); E. Kirschbaum, The Tombs of St. Peter and St. Paul (1959); D. W. O’Connor, Peter in Rome (Columbia, 1969). On the disposal of the bodies see H. Chadwick, Journ. Theol. Studies, 1957, 31 ff. Excavations (1958) have revealed further burials in this area, including that of a slave of Nero who may have been connected with the administration of the Gardens of Nero. [p. 261]

  26 NERO’S LIBERATION OF GREECE. An inscription from Acraephiae in Boeotia contains the text of Nero’s edict summoning the Greeks to the Isthmus and of his speech of liberation. See Smallwood, Documents, n. 64; translation in Lewis and Reinhold, Rn. Civ. ii, 394. The date was 28 Nov., probably 66, possibly 67: see CAH, X, 735, n. 2. For another probably relevant inscription see A. Momigliano, JRS, 1944, 115. On the chronology of Nero’s visit to Greece see K. R. Bradley, Latomus, 1978, 61 ff. [p. 263]

  27 THE ANGLESEY HOARD. See Sir Cyril Fox, A Find of the Early Iron Age from Llyn Cerrig Bach, Anglesey (1946). [p. 264]

  28 BOUDICCA’S REVOLT. See R. Syme, Tacitus, 762 ff. (who dates the outbreak in 60, not 61) and C. M. Bulst, Historia, 1961, 496 ff. On the governor Q. Veranius, Suetonius’ immediate predecessor, see A. E. Gordon, Univ. California Pub. in Cl. Arch. 1952, 241 ff., and E. Birley, Roman Britain and the Roman Army (1953), 1 ff. The tombstone of Iulius Classicianus was found in London. The fact that he was of provincial or North Italian origin may bear on his more sympathetic policy; see E. Birley, Antiquaries Journal, 1936, 207 f. See D. R. Dudley and G. Webster, The Rebellion of Boudicca (1962) and G. Webster, Boudicca, The British Revolt against Rome, A.D. 60 (1978). On the recall of Suetonius see M. T. Griffin Scripta Class. Israelica, 1976–77, 138 ff. [p. 265]

  29 ARMENIA AND PARTHIA. See Tac. Ann. xiii, 7–9; 34–41; xiv, 23–26; xv, 1–17; 24–31; Dio Cass. lxii, 19–23. Cf. Furneaux, ed. of Annals, II (1907), 96 ff.; Henderson, Nero, 153 ff.; Anderson, CAH, X, 758 ff.; and for discussion of detailed and controversial points (e.g. chronology and fluctuations in Roman policy) see D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, II, 1411 ff. On Corbulo see R. Syme, JRS, 1970, 37 ff. and on his eastern campaign see K. Gilmartin, Historia, 1973, 583 ff. On the Armenian settlement of A.D. 60 see A. A. Barrett, Cl. Qu., 1979, 465 ff. [p. 265]

  30 NERO AND THE CASPIAN. The objective, the Caspiae Portae
, probably is the Dariel Pass over the Caucasus north of Tiflis. The view of W. Schur (Die Orientpolitik d. Kaisers Nero, 1923) that Nero was trying to ‘encircle’ Armenia and dominate a supposed traderoute from the Black Sea to India via the Caspian and the Oxus has not found general acceptance: see D. Magie, op. cit., 1418. Against the existence of this trade-route see Sir W. W. Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria and India (1938), Appendix xiv. [p. 266]

  31 NERO AND ETHIOPIA. On the expedition see Pliny, NH, vi, 181 ff.; xii, 19; Seneca, Nat. Quaest, vi, 8, 3; Dio Cass. lxiii, 8, 1. Cf. M. Cary and E. H. Warmington, The Ancient Explorers (1929), 174 ff. For a criticism of the view that Nero intended serious warfare and wished to safeguard the Arabian coast and trade-routes in the Red Sea against the ambitions of the Axumite kingdom (cf. W. Schur, op. cit.), see J. G. C. Anderson, CAH, X, 880 ff. A fragment of papyrus describes a minor engagement between some Romans and Ethiopians: for the view that this may refer to Nero’s expedition, see E. G. Turner, JRS, 1950, 57 ff. Cf. also ch. XII, n. 13. [p. 266]