Dying Every Day

by James Romm

  16. ordered Agrippina stripped of her bodyguard: Tacitus, Annals 13.18; Suetonius, Nero 34.1. Tacitus specifies that the Germans had been stationed by Agrippina’s side only recently, perhaps after Nero’s accession.

  17. a conspicuous armed guard: Tacitus, Annals 13.18. Agrippina was at this point living in the country estate of her grandmother Antonia.

  18. an old grudge against Agrippina: As explained by Tacitus, Annals 13.19. Agrippina had reportedly driven off a suitor who was interested in marrying Julia.

  19. a new Praetorian prefect: Tacitus (Annals 13.20) makes a distinction among his three named sources for the events of this night. Two of them had said nothing about Nero’s mistrust of Burrus, while the third, Fabius Rusticus, gives intimate details about the effort to appoint a new prefect and Seneca’s determination to stop it. Tacitus mistrusts Rusticus as a former protégé of Seneca’s, and Griffin (Seneca, p. 88) thinks he was right to do so, but Barrett (Agrippina, p. 175) is less certain. There is nothing inherently implausible in the story, and if Rusticus had more motive than others to put Seneca in a favorable light, he also had greater access to Seneca’s inside information.

  20. Faenius Rufus, a protégé of Agrippina: Later to play an important, and unattractive, role in the Pisonian conspiracy; see here in this book.

  21. bear a second son: The fact that Agrippina had not had children with Claudius, or with her second husband, Crispus Passienus, is remarkable. It seems that her own dynastic strategy, and later the plan she shared with Claudius, was to avoid creating a rival to Nero, if necessary by means of contraception and abortion. There is no reason to think she had become infertile.

  22. the highest constitutional office: The question of the precise date of both Seneca’s and Gallio’s consulships is discussed by Griffin, Seneca, p. 73 n. 6. Both were suffect consuls, taking office as midterm replacements for the weightier consules ordinarii.

  23. estates in Egypt, Spain, and Campania: The inventory of Seneca’s probable properties has been compiled by Griffin, Seneca, pp. 286–94.

  24. famed for their size and magnificence: Juvenal, Satire 10.16 (which is also the source of the term praedives, mentioned here in this book).

  25. another property, a choice vineyard: Attested by Pliny the Elder (Natural History 14.49), who says Seneca bought the property at huge expense but immediately improved it, so as to realize a quick profit.

  26. more than 180 gallons of wine to the acre: The figure comes from a contemporary, Columella (De Re Rustica 3.3.3).

  27. Seneca invested in Britain: Seneca nowhere mentions such British loans himself, but Griffin (see here in this book and note) and others do not doubt that there is some substance to Dio’s claim (at 62.2.1), even if the amount seems exaggerated. According to Tacitus (Annals 13.42.7), Suillius Rufus, in the attack he leveled at Seneca in the Senate in 58, alleged rapacious lending in the provinces, without specifying which ones. See Barbara Levick, “Seneca and Money,” in Seneca uomo politico e l’età di Claudio e di Nerone, ed. Arturo De Vivo and Elio Lo Cascio (Bari, 2003), pp. 223–24. Dio seems to make a further claim that Seneca pressed the money on borrowers against their will, but the Greek word that indicates this is emended by some editors to instead show that the British chiefs wanted the money.

  28. a harder, tougher regimen: See Griffin, Seneca, pp. 294–314, and “Imago Vitae Suae,” pp. 55–58.

  29. “No one excelled this millionaire”: Griffin, Seneca, p. 286. The paradox is exemplified by a line Seneca quoted from a Cynic teacher he especially admired: “A man may despise the riches in his own pocket” (Letters to Lucilius 20.10). Griffin’s greatest misgiving on this score, as expressed both in Seneca and “Imago Vitae Suae,” is that Seneca had orthodox Stoic justifications for his wealth, and used them on occasion, but elsewhere turned to Cynic-style rants against affluence. Paul Veyne’s attempts (Seneca, pp. 10–16) to get Seneca out of his moral paradox form a study in rationalization.

  30. “By what kind of wisdom”: Tacitus, Annals 13.42. Tacitus’ inclusion of the long quotation, without explicit disavowal, shows that he harbored some doubts himself about how Seneca’s deeds accorded with his words.

  31. “Even after denouncing tyranny”: The long list of charges is found at Dio 61.10. They stand in the correct chronological position to be connected to Suillius’ speech, and some seem to echo the portion of that speech recorded by Tacitus, but others go far beyond it.

  32. “Why do you speak better”: The turn comes at the start of chap. 17, where Seneca introduces his critics abruptly: “So, if one of those who bark like dogs against philosophy says the kind of thing they always say …” The bitter tone of what follows has seemed to many scholars an ad hominem rebuttal, prompted by Suillius’ speech, though this cannot be proven. Griffin (Seneca, pp. 308–9), in discussing the problem, takes a moderate position: “Seneca has not simply described what Suillius has said omitting his name; he has generalized, using Suillius’ criticisms and others he has suffered at different times as a core.” In her chronological table (pp. 396 and 399) she makes clear that the De Vita Beata must be dated after, though not necessarily soon after, the speech by Suillius.

  33. The questions go on and on: One would give much to know to what degree these imagined questions reflect what was actually thought about, or even true of, Seneca’s own lifestyle. Seneca often moves imperceptibly from a personal case to a hypothetical or general one, or back again, so one cannot infer that the “you” addressed here is always Seneca himself. Nonetheless little in the content of the questions is manifestly at odds with known circumstances of Seneca’s life. Even when he mentions shedding tears at the death of a wife (De Vita Beata 17.1), it is conceivable that he refers to his own experience. (See here for the possibility that Seneca had lost his first wife.)

  34. it is strange that he does so: The same phenomenon is seen in a later work, De Beneficiis, in which Seneca evokes the Cynic Demetrius as his mask, but then has Demetrius attack the very practices in which Seneca is known to have engaged (see here in this book). Seneca’s writings sometimes exhibit what a modern psychologist might call reaction formation: sources of anxiety in his life, or guilt over his own behavior, become embodied in his created personae.

  35. ability to pull imperial strings: Griffin (Seneca, pp. 97, 247) gives credence to the argument, first raised by W. H. Alexander, (1952, 322), that Seneca was instrumental in arranging the prosecution and banishment of Suillius, a move she considers a form of “revenge.”

  36. continued sleeping with Acte: According to Tacitus (Annals 13.46), Poppaea referred to the continuing affair at the time that Nero first took an interest in her.

  37. A haughty whore, bedecked: Octavia, lines 125–6. Ferri’s commentary clarifies the metaphor: “The expression … describes Poppaea in terms of a victorious epic warrior” (Octavia, p. 162).

  38. distorting Poppaea into a caricature: As discussed by Franz Holtrattner, Poppaea Neronis potens: die Gestalt der Poppaea Sabina in den Nerobüchern des Tacitus (Graz 1995).

  39. two different reports: Tacitus, in Histories (1.13) and Annals (13.45–46). The version in the Histories, which makes Poppaea’s marriage to Otho a sham contrived by Nero, is seconded by Suetonius (Otho 3), Dio (62.11.2), and Plutarch (Galba 19.106). That of the Annals, in which Otho is a true husband displaced by Nero, has generally been preferred by modern historians. See Griffin, Nero, p. 102, for example.

  40. Otho ended up far from Rome: Suetonius’ report (Otho 3) that Otho was at Baiae in 59, so as to host a dinner party for Nero and Agrippina, seems to be in error; Tacitus (Annals 13.46) specifies that he stayed in Lusitania until 69.

  41. “erotic kisses and endearments”: Tacitus, Annals 14.2. Tacitus gives considerable effort in this chapter to determining the story’s veracity, and his tone shows he inclines toward belief.

  42. Suetonius endorsed this alternate version: Suetonius, Nero 28, implies that Nero was prevented from consummating his desires. Suetonius in the same chapter cites
a popular rumor that Nero emerged from the curtained litter of Agrippina with stained and rumpled clothing. This prompts an amusing comment from Wood (Imperial Women, p. 264) about the difficulty of having sex, incestuous or otherwise, in a moving litter. Champlin (Nero, p. 88) discredits the anecdote about the litter on other grounds but does not pass judgment on the incest story generally.

  43. Dio preserved a bizarre third variant: Dio 62.11.2, adduced as a certainty after Dio has refused to comment on the veracity of the incest tale.

  44. The truth lies beyond our grasp: No modern historian has to my knowledge taken a firm position on the incest tale; see for example Champlin, Nero, p. 88, and Barrett, Agrippina, p. 183. Wood (Imperial Women, p. 264) is skeptical but says that only the two participants in the relationship could have known the truth. Griffin does not discuss it.

  45. He reported that Seneca used Acte: Tacitus, Annals 14.2.

  46. a Greek freedman named Anicetus: Tacitus (Annals 14.3) specifies that he was formerly one of Nero’s tutors, making his elevation above Seneca in the episode that follows all the more pointed.

  47. that the future will believe with difficulty: Octavia, lines 359–60.

  48. Tacitus wondered: Tacitus, Annals 14.7.3, where Nero summons Seneca and Burrus, whom Tacitus describes as incertum an et ante gnaros—“perhaps previously informed [of the murder plot], perhaps not.”

  49. Dio made Seneca chief instigator: Dio 62.12.1: “Seneca too urged him on [in addition to Poppaea], as has been reported by many trustworthy authorities, whether because he wanted to silence the charges against himself, or because he wanted to lead Nero forward into unholy bloodshed so that he would be destroyed as soon as possible by both gods and men.”

  50. perhaps even fortifying herself with antidotes: So claim Tacitus (Annals 14.2) and Suetonius (Nero 34.2). Suetonius even asserts that Nero tried to poison Agrippina on three occasions, without success.

  51. “Why do we need to see”: Letters to Lucilius 51.12. Seneca neatly resolves the paradox of his having been to Baiae himself to witness these things: he begins by telling Lucilius that he left the resort town, presumably in disgust, the day after he got there (51.1).

  52. moored at a Baiae villa: Tacitus writes confusedly about the movements of the ship, placing it first at Bauli and claiming that Agrippina was suspicious and declined to use it (Annals 14.4.5–6), then situating it at Baiae without explanation (14.4.7). The report of Suetonius (Nero 34) has the ship at Baiae all along, but Suetonius (Otho 3) also, improbably, states that Otho, the banished former husband of Poppaea, was the host at the final dinner party. Such inconsistencies cloud the picture but should not call the credibility of the whole tale into question, as Dawson (“Whatever Happened to Lady Agrippina?”) would have it.

  53. Nero’s kisses, as he put her on board: For reasons that escape me, all three major sources include the single striking detail that Nero kissed his mother’s breasts in farewell: Tacitus, Annals 14.4.8; Dio, 62.13.2; Suetonius, Nero 34.2. This was in no way a customary or appropriate way for a son to bid farewell to a mother, even one who had become his incestuous lover.

  54. Nero’s old guard had temporized: Barrett’s (Agrippina, p. 189) editorializing comment on Burrus’ behavior applies equally well to Seneca: “He lacked the courage to object to the murder but also lacked the courage to follow the emperor’s orders to carry it out.”

  55. Dying and wretched, she makes one last request: Octavia, lines 367–76. Tacitus (Annals 14.8.6) and Dio (62.13.5) give similar reports. The final words of Jocasta in Seneca’s tragedy Oedipus have a strangely similar point, but it is not clear what the historical relationship is between the play and the accounts of Agrippina’s death.

  CHAPTER 5: MARITOCIDE (A.D. 59–62)

  1. peer vacantly into the darkness: The scene is drawn with superb artistry by Tacitus (Annals 14.10) and confirmed by Dio (62.14.4).

  2. to view the corpse: Tacitus (Annals 14.9.1) leaves the question open, but the sequence of his own narrative tells against it. Dio (62.14.2) and Suetonius (Nero 34.4) are certain he came, and Dio has him remark, as he studies her naked form, “I did not know I had so beautiful a mother.”

  3. winning their acquiescence: Seneca’s authorship of the letter to the Senate is strongly implied by Tacitus (Annals 14.11.4) and is stated explicitly by Quintilian (8.5.18). But see the discussion by W. H. Alexander, “The Communiqué to the Senate on Agrippina’s Death,” Classical Philology 49 (1954): 94–97, which reaches the bizarre conclusion that Seneca was not the author of the letter, ancient testimony notwithstanding.

  4. a record of its content and structure: Tacitus, Annals 14.10.10–11.3.

  5. arranging gifts and handouts: A donative of silver for the Praetorians is attested by Dio (62.14.3).

  6. “I neither believe nor rejoice”: Quoted in Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 8.5.18.

  7. a stiff-necked Stoic named Thrasea Paetus: The timing of this departure is given slightly differently by Tacitus (Annals 14.12.2), who implies that it followed the voting of honors to Nero, and by Dio (62.15.2), who says explicitly that the walkout immediately followed the reading of the letter.

  8. “Farewell father, farewell mother”: Datus is known only from this anecdote, recorded by Suetonius (Nero 39.3). Datus was apparently banished as a result of his indiscretion.

  9. One wag hung a leather sack: Dio 62.16.1–2. Suetonius (Nero 39) gives an elaborate list of derogatory graffiti.

  10. not wishing to give substance to rumors: Dio 62.16.3, closely seconded by Suetonius, Nero 39.

  11. the Ludi Maximi: Description from Dio 62.17.2–18.3. A valuable chronology of Nero’s games and spectacles is found in Champlin, Nero, pp. 69–75.

  12. “Please hear me graciously, masters”: The humility of this plea was not intended ironically, if we follow Champlin’s (Nero, chap. 3) insightful discussion of Nero’s artistic ambitions.

  13. stationed where he could be seen: Dio 62.20.3. Tacitus (Annals 14.15.7) notes the participation of Burrus, “grieving but praising,” but is silent on Seneca and his brother. It would be natural for Seneca to be coopted into the same role as Burrus at this event, and Tacitus shows at other points a desire to spare Seneca from humiliation, so Dio’s report seems credible.

  14. the sage was enlisted to prompt Nero: Dio 62.20.3.

  15. Seneca and Burrus had forbidden it: Clearly implied by Tacitus at Annals 14.14.1 and 3, where he notes that Nero had yearned to race chariots for a long time and that at the current moment, Seneca and Burrus could no longer stand up to him.

  16. two years younger than Nero: The facts of Lucan’s life are known from two brief biographies, one by Suetonius and the other by Vacca (a medieval grammarian), and from a laudatory poem by Statius, Silvae 2.7.

  17. a summons to return to Rome: No firm date is given for Lucan’s recall, but the poet was already back in Rome for the Neronia of 60. See Griffin’s discussion (Nero, pp. 157–58) for more detail.

  18. “There is no torment of the heart”: Consolation to Helvia 18.5. The “Marcus” referred to here is almost certainly Lucan; see Griffin, Seneca, p. 58. The boy was at this time three or four years old.

  19. a very fast political track: Griffin, Nero, pp. 157–58. The five-year acceleration, previously used only for heirs to the throne, is so shocking that a few scholars have deemed it impossible. See Fred Ahl, Lucan: An Introduction (Ithaca, 1976), p. 347n.

  20. Lucan had begun work: The chronology of the Civil War is a matter of some controversy. Vacca’s biography records that three books were circulated first, probably books 1 through 3, and that their publication preceded the souring of relations between Nero and Lucan, dated by most scholars to 62.

  21. some have read it as satire: See Ahl, Lucan, pp. 47–48, and Stephen Hinds, “Generalizing About Ovid,” in The Imperial Muse, ed. A. J. Boyle (Victoria, Australia, 1987), pp. 27–29. An eloquent defense of the passage’s sincerity has been made by Michael Dewar, “Laying It On with a Trowel: The Proem to Lucan
and Related Texts,” Classical Quarterly 44 (1994): 199–211.

  22. removed his crown and awarded it: This seems to be the inevitable inference that results from combining Suetonius’ report (Nero 12.3), that the winners of poetic and rhetorical competitions at the Neronia gave their crowns to Nero, with that of Vacca (Vita Lucani), that Lucan was the winner in Roman poetry.

  23. other authors at his court: Details from Tacitus, Annals 14.16. The first satire of Persius, an embittered rant against the well-fed and conventional poets who wrote to please, is generally regarded as a critique of Nero’s court circle, penned by one who was not a member.

  24. mock naval battles: Suetonius, Nero 12.1; Dio 61.9.5. For a discussion, see K. Coleman, “Launching into History: Aquatic Displays in the Early Empire,” Journal of Roman Studies 83 (1993): 55–57.

  25. exotic creatures from far-off lands: These grand games were described by Calpurnius Siculus, Eclogue 7, beginning at line 23. The description of “seals chased by bears” was first seen as a reference to polar bears by George Jennison, “Polar Bears at Rome: Calpurnius Siculus, Ecl. 7.65–66,” Classical Review 36 (1922): 73, though the connection has been doubted. For discussion see G. B. Townsend, “Calpurnius Siculus and the Munus Neronis,” Journal of Roman Studies 70 (1980): 169–74.

  26. it would repeat every five years: There is a notorious chronological problem here in that Nero may have intended the Neronia to recur every four years (Suetonius, Nero 12.3; Dio 62.21.1), yet the second iteration came in 65, without any notice in our sources of a delay. It could be that Suetonius or his source has misused the word quinquennale—which usually means “every four years” due to the Roman method of inclusive counting—to mean “every five years” instead. Those interested in the problem can consult J. D. P. Bolton, “Was the Neronia a Freak Festival?,” Classical Quarterly 42 (1948): 82–90.

  27. supplied at his own expense: In contrast to ordinary games, paid for privately by wealthy officials; see Tacitus, Annals 14.21.4.