Dying Every Day
Page 28
28. boundary lines were hard to draw: “It is not improbable that by A.D. 68 the aerarium [a treasury of public funds] and the fiscus [the emperor’s private estate] were, in practice, hardly distinguishable.” So says C. H. V. Sutherland, “Aerarium and Fiscus During the Early Empire,” American Journal of Philology 66 (1945): 166. Griffin (Nero, pp. 199–200) gives a more nuanced view but concurs that “a shortage in the fiscus was eventually liable to cause trouble in the aerarium too.”
29. by a reform enacted under his reign: See Tacitus, Annals 13.29, and Griffin, Nero, pp. 56–57.
30. give 10 million sesterces to a freedman: Anecdote related by Dio 61.5.4.
31. tried (with little success) to get most of it back: See Suetonius, Galba 15; Tacitus, Histories 1.20.
32. this kind of giving: Tacitus, Annals 13.18.
33. some of them touching closely: The peculiar relevance of Seneca’s own life to the theme of De Beneficiis has been discussed by Miriam Griffin in several contexts, including a 2012 book on De Beneficiis that I was not able to consult. But see “De Beneficiis and Roman Society,” Journal of Roman Studies 93 (2003): 92–113; “Seneca as a Sociologist: De Beneficiis,” in De Vivo and Lo Cascio, Seneca uomo politico, especially 106–9; and the introduction she coauthored with Brad Inwood in their new translation, Seneca: On Benefits (Chicago, 2011).
34. Boudicca, warrior-queen of the Iceni: Various versions of her name are in current use, including Boudica and Boadicea. The form used here is that found in the best Tacitus manuscripts; the variant Boadicea apparently arose from the title of an eighteenth-century English poem.
35. an opportune moment to strike: The historical account that follows is taken largely from Tacitus, Annals 14.31–39.
36. Temple of Divine Claudius: The base of the temple today underlies a Norman castle in Colchester.
37. the long speeches Dio assigns her: At 62.3–6, Dio quotes an extremely long and detailed diatribe against all things Roman by the British queen, where Tacitus (Annals 14.35) gives her only a short speech.
38. some modern historians credit his account: In particular, Christoph M. Bulst, who regards the report as exaggerated but “unlikely to be an invention”; see “The Revolt of Queen Boudicca in A.D. 60,” Historia 10 (1961): 501. This seems to be essentially Miriam Griffin’s position (Seneca, pp. 232 and 246; see also Nero, p. 226), for she rejects the idea that “Seneca alone caused the panic” but accepts that he did recall his British loans. On the other side of the argument, Dio’s accusation against Seneca is entirely rejected by John C. Overbeck, “Tacitus and Dio on Seneca’s Rebellion,” American Journal of Philology 90 (1969): 140–41, and by Furneaux, Annals of Tacitus. John Wacher, “Britain: 43 B.C. to A.D. 69,” in Cambridge Ancient History, pp. 10.508–9, does not mention Seneca in his discussion of the rebellion’s causes.
39. ingeniously linked it: C. E. Stevens, “The Will of Q. Veranius,” Classical Review 1 (1951), 4–7; endorsed by Bulst, “Revolt of Queen Boudicca,” p. 501.
40. prior to the rebellion: Argued by Stevens, “Will of Q. Veranius” 4, on different grounds than mine (the fact that Tacitus gives no hint of it). In a long discussion, K. R. Bradley (Suetonius’ Life of Nero, pp. 110–13) cites numerous attempts to date this report and himself opts for the year or so after Nero’s accession. What is certain is that the oft-mentioned date of A.D. 61, or any date after the start of the rebellion, can be rejected. Nero committed sizable forces to quelling the revolt, and the loss of Roman life that it entailed made withdrawal unthinkable.
41. he mentions Burrus only once: See here in this book.
42. a painful throat swelling: Recounted by Tacitus, Annals 14.51. Tacitus admits to doubt about the poisoning theory that he said was held by the majority of sources. Dio (62.13.3) and Suetonius (Nero 35) are more certain on this score, as is McDermott (“Sextus Afranius Burrus,” pp. 252–53).
43. owner of Burrus’ house: See Tacitus, Annals 14.60.5, where Nero is able, shortly after this, to make a gift of Burrus’ house to Octavia as part of a divorce settlement.
44. the case of a wealthy aunt, Domitia: Dio 62.17.1–2; Suetonius Nero 34.5. Tacitus says nothing of the death of Domitia to either confirm or refute these rumors of poisoning, but the words he chooses in describing the poisoning of Pallas—“by his long old age he was keeping back [from Nero] a huge fortune”—confirm that Nero sometimes could not wait for nature to take its course.
45. Tigellinus demonized Seneca and other Stoics: Tacitus, Annals 14.57.5. This is the first occasion (to judge by Tacitus’ evidence) on which the Stoic school was branded a political faction adverse to the interests of the princeps, but that view was to develop strongly under Tigellinus’ prefecture; see here in this book.
46. Seneca’s enemies roused themselves: Tacitus (Annals 14.52) repeats their charges at some length. He castigates these men as deteriores, “the worse sort,” but nonetheless (as he did earlier with Suillius Rufus) gives them unusual latitude to express themselves.
47. “Sure, and be certain to give back”: Anecdote related by Dio 62.13.2. Dio’s account implies that Nero poisoned Burrus in part to clear the way for divorcing Octavia.
48. jolted the princeps into action: It has often been wondered why Nero waited so long after the death of Agrippina, who had been his principal stumbling block, to divorce Octavia and marry Poppaea. The sequence of cause and effect in 62 is also a source of confusion: Did Nero feel free to divorce Octavia after the deaths of Plautus and Sulla? Or was it Poppaea’s pregnancy that freed his hand, and the murders were only an expedient? What role did the death of Burrus play? We do not have an exact enough chronology of these events to be certain.
49. Do as I order: Octavia, lines 437–38, addressed to a character identified in the manuscripts only as “prefect.” Ferri (Octavia, pp. 250–51) correctly surmises that this is an anonymous or “type” character, not to be identified either as Burrus or as one of his successors, Faenius Rufus or Tigellinus. For the view that it is Tigellinus, see P. Kragelund, “The Prefect’s Dilemma and the Date of Octavia,” Classical Quarterly 38 (1988): 492–508.
50. journey in only five days: Not a record-setting speed for an ancient ship sailing under favorable winds but impressive nonetheless. See Lionel Casson, “Speed Under Sail of Ancient Ships,” Transactions of the American Philological Association 82 (1951): 136–48. Details of the episode are from Tacitus, Annals 14.57.4.
51. got wind of the coming attack: The details are supplied by Tacitus, Annals 14.58–59.
52. safeguard his wife and children: Tacitus (Annals 14.59) gives the double motive. If Plautus meant to protect Pollitta, his actions were sadly in vain; Tacitus narrates her grim suicide three years later at Annals 16.10–11.
53. a revolution was at hand: The long speech is paraphrased by Tacitus at Annals 14.61.
54. banishment to some comfortable place: In fact, Anicetus ended up on Sardinia, as Tacitus (Annals 14.62.6) informs us, where he died a natural death.
55. under house arrest in a sumptuous villa: The ruins of what is today known as Villa Giulia (after Augustus’ daughter Julia, who occupied it in the early first century A.D.) can be seen at the north end of modern Ventotene (ancient Pandateria).
56. set in motion the events: This is the interpretation of the line by Ferri (Octavia, pp. 401–2), though there are admitted obscurities and possible textual problems.
CHAPTER 6: HOLOCAUST (A.D. 62–64)
1. poisoned for his estate: Tacitus, Annals 14.65.1.
2. Doryphorus, a special favorite: Suetonius, Nero 29.
3. “I’ve told you already”: Quoted in Dio 62.13.2.
4. a strangely adverse effect: The ancient sources are vague about the timing of the downturn in Nero’s relations with Lucan, but all imply that artistic jealousy, not political ideology, was its source; see Griffin, Nero, pp. 158–59. Vacca’s biography specifies that three books of Civil War had appeared before this downturn, probably meaning books 1, 2, and 3 (43–47).
6. picking up a chamber pot: Retold by Seneca in De Beneficiis (3.26) as an example of how any small joke or gesture could bring an indictment in the time of Tiberius. The victim of this outrage, Paulus (not otherwise known), was saved when his quick-thinking slave slipped the ring off his finger.
7. The story is plausible: Griffin (Nero, pp. 48–49) explains her reasons for concurring with Tacitus’ inference, though she also makes clear it was only an inference, not based on primary sources.
8. the birthdays of the tyrant-slayers: Attested by Juvenal, Satire 5.36–37, as a rite that Thrasea shared with his son-in-law, Helvidius Priscus.
9. aided the prosecution: Tacitus, Annals 13.33.3 and 16.21.3.
10. one of his many snapshots: Tacitus, Annals 15.23.6.
11. the routine of a powerful statesman: Tacitus, Annals 14.56.6.
12. his most harrowing tragedy, Thyestes: The problem of dating Seneca’s tragedies has been discussed in chapter 2. Thyestes is generally acknowledged to be a late play, according to Fitch’s metrical criteria, and its political themes have been felt to be particularly appropriate to the early 60s. See Tarrant, Seneca’s Thyestes, pp. 13 and 48. There are additionally individual lines of the play that seem to postdate the late 50s. See Tarrant, Seneca’s Thyestes, p. 182, and R. G. Nisbet, “The Dating of Seneca’s Tragedies, with Special Reference to Thyestes,” in Fitch, Oxford Readings: Seneca.
13. “among the decrepit”: Letters to Lucilius 26.1.
14. Making the rounds of his estates: The incident is related at Letters to Lucilius 12.1–2.
15. following the emperor and the court through Italy: Inferential, but in my view inescapable, in that Nero had denied Seneca’s request in 62 to retire. Tacitus (Annals 14.56) indicates that Seneca curbed his political activity thereafter, but he could not have brought it to a halt without incurring Nero’s enmity. The fact that Seneca had to take further steps toward withdrawal in 64 (see here in this book) proves that up to that time he had remained partially engaged.
16. so many other friends were dead: Burrus’ death in 62 was preceded by that of Annaeus Serenus, addressee of both De Constantia Sapientis and De Tranquillitate Animi. Another close friend, Aufidius Bassus, is described as near death in Letter 30, and the deaths of Cornelius Senecio and Tullius Marcelinus also occurred during the period when the Letters were being composed (101.1–3, 77.5–9).
17. having undergone torture: Seneca alludes to this painful episode in the preface to book 4 of Natural Questions, sections 15–17. The reason for Lucilius’ persecution, as given there, was his friendship with Gaetulicus, an army officer who had plotted a rebellion against Caligula.
18. a trip to a friend’s vacation home: The letter summarized here is number 53, written probably in 63. Seneca does not indicate whom he was visiting or why, or what had brought him to Baiae and vicinity, which is his location as well in Letters 51, 55, and 57. Elaine Fantham has speculated that he was joining the Roman court and Senate for its “spring break” April holiday, or August beach getaway, when he wrote these Campanian letters. See Fantham, ed., Seneca: Selected Letters (Oxford, 2010), p. xxii n22.
19. how an author’s style reflects his character: The celebrated Letter 114.
20. spinning himself: Modern admirers of Seneca’s Letters, whose ranks include the esteemed philosopher Michel Foucault, may be dismayed by my brief and skeptical treatment of them. I hasten to repeat the words of my introduction, that I am not undertaking a survey of Seneca’s philosophic ideas, a task that in the case of the Letters would be lengthy and complex. My concern is with the points of contact between Seneca’s literary and political careers. That the Letters do contain such points of contact is, I think, incontestable, given the following: (1) the Letters were written to be published and seen by a wide audience of contemporaries, including much of the Roman elite and Nero himself; (2) Seneca was not “in retirement” at the time he wrote the Letters, as is often asserted, but was striving to lower his political profile even while remaining at court, at Nero’s insistence; (3) Seneca felt the need to appease or warn off Nero at this time, as shown by Natural Questions, a work roughly concurrent with the Letters (see here in this book); and (4) at least one letter in the collection (as discussed in this book, here) contains what appears unmistakably to be a coded communication directed at Nero, though readers can disagree (as I disagree with Paul Veyne here ) as to its message.
21. “Philosophy is such a sacred thing”: Letters 55.4.
22. he too deceives: An extreme and, to my mind, absurd interpretive position holds that not even the most pointedly autobiographical statements in Seneca’s Letters can be taken as “true” or be used to reconstruct Seneca’s life, discussed for example by Catharine Edwards, “Self-scrutiny and Self-transformation in Seneca’s Letters,” in Fitch, Oxford Readings: Seneca, p. 85 and n. 4. That being said, there are statements in the Letters that one cannot take literally without creating absurdities. Did Seneca really move into rooms above a public bath simply to test his powers of concentration (Letter 56)? Or was it just a “thought experiment”? (I leave aside the issue of whether the Letters represent one side of an actual correspondence between Seneca and Lucilius; most scholars today agree it does not, though Seneca has gone to great lengths to create a convincing fiction.)
23. the course of a typical day: The opening section of Letter 83 is referred to. In Letter 76.1, Seneca similarly indicates that he has spent much of his day, for the previous five days, listening to philosophic discourse.
24. “We are dying every day”: The precise words quoted here, cotidie morimur in Latin, are in fact from Letter 24.20.
25. “Even while suffocating”: Letter 54.3.
26. Two cases: Letter 70.20–23.
27. whether one should commit suicide: Letter 70.8–13. Elaine Fantham (Seneca: Selected Letters, p. 109) notes the relevance of this letter to “the experience of Seneca and others at Nero’s court.”
28. a mutual nonaggression pact: The letter referred to is 73, about which Fantham (Seneca: Selected Letters, p. 116) comments: “It is as near as Seneca comes to asserting his loyalty to the treacherous emperor Nero.” René Waltz first stressed the self-protective, deal-making aspect of this letter in Vie de Sénèque (Paris, 1909), p. 418, a view rejected by Griffin (Seneca, p. 360). More recently Paul Veyne (Seneca, pp. 160–63) has devoted an extensive discussion to Letter 73, which he correctly assesses as “an open letter intended for Nero” but, in my view, misreads and mischaracterizes. Veyne skews his analysis by prefacing it with an anecdote, taken from Philostratus, “to recreate the climate of those years”—a climate of extreme autocratic repression, as he sees it. But the anecdote dates from a time after the Pisonian conspiracy, when the climate at Rome had changed considerably from what it was when Seneca was writing. In general, Veyne would like to see the Letters to Lucilius as oppositional literature, “keeping the torch of truth burning” in a dark time, and he compares them (p. 159) to the underground publications of modern East Bloc dissidents before perestroika, but this analogy, again, badly overstates the degree of repression in Nero’s Rome at the time the Letters were written. “Until the conspiracy of Piso in 65 most senators were free from the terror that had hardly abated in the previous generation.” P. A. Brunt, “Stoicism and the Principate,” Papers of the British School at Rome 43 (Rome, 1975), p. 26.
29. Natural Questions: The two works are both dated by Miriam Griffin (Seneca, p. 396) to “after the retirement in 62.” Natural Questions has segments that must fall earlier than summer 64, and others that must be later than February 63. The Letters have a “dramatic date” between winter 63 and autumn 64 and were probably published (at least in part) in late 64 or early 65. It is thus barely possible, but unlikely, that one work entirely preceded the other. Yet this is the thesis on which Paul Veyne (Seneca, p. 25) sharply distinguishes his assessment of Seneca’s technique in the two works, claiming tha
t “something happened around 63” to alter Seneca’s mind-set.
30. praises Nero for his poetry: At Natural Questions 1.5.6, in a discussion of iridescence, Seneca quotes Nero’s verse description of peacocks’ necks, “the neck of Venus’ dove glitters as it moves,” and characterizes the line as “very beautifully turned.”
31. “a man passionately devoted to truth”: Natural Questions 6.8.1. Harry Hine has discussed the phrase extensively in “Rome, the Cosmos, and the Emperor in Seneca’s Natural Questions,” Journal of Roman Studies 96 (2006): 64–67, giving it a more generous interpretation than I have done. Hine would like to see Nero as genuinely possessing “some, perhaps modest … commitment to furthering knowledge of the natural world,” but such commitment, in my view, was so modest as to be invisible.
32. “an eternal charge against Alexander”: Natural Questions 6.23.2–3. The parallel between the situation of Seneca with respect to Nero, and that of Callisthenes with respect to Alexander, seems to me inescapable, though it is downplayed by Hine (“Rome, the Cosmos,” p. 64) and more recently by Gareth Williams, The Cosmic Viewpoint: A Study of Seneca’s “Natural Questions” (Oxford, 2012), p. 254 and n. 151. My own reading falls into line with that of Italo Lana, Lucio Anneo Seneca (Turin, 1955), p. 55.
33. 62 or 63: Seneca clearly dates the quake to 63, but Tacitus (Annals 15.22.2) a year earlier. Both dates have been defended by scholars. See Wallace-Hadrill, “Seneca and the Pompeian Earthquake,” in De Vivo and Lo Cascio, Seneca uomo politico.
34. Curious details: Natural Questions 6.1.2–3 and 6.27–30.
35. lost everything in the fire: The name of a certain Quintus Aebutius Liberalis, a midrank military officer, has been found on two inscriptions in Dalmatia. See Griffin, Seneca, pp. 455–56. If this is the same man as Seneca’s friend or even a close relation, then the falloff in the family’s fortunes was indeed severe, for the post Quintus occupied did not befit a wealthy eques.