by James Romm
36. “Exile, torture, disease, war, shipwreck”: Letter 91.8.
37. “There won’t be long until the destruction”: Natural Questions 30.1.5.
38. “All boundaries will be sundered”: Natural Questions 1.29.8–9.
39. ban state commendations: Tacitus, Annals 15.20–22.
40. “Some animals mix up their own footprints”: Letters 68.4.
41. “It is difficult, if not impossible”: Griffin, Seneca, p. 334. Brunt (“Stoicism and the Principate,” p. 19) says similarly, “Seneca’s views on the propriety of a political career are self-contradictory.”
42. banquets that stretched from noon to midnight: Suetonius, Nero 27.2; see also 22.3. 40.4.
43. “I hate you, Nero”: Quoted in Dio 62.15.1.
44. a rigorous diet heavily weighted with leeks: Suetonius, Nero 20.1, and Pliny the Elder, Natural History 34.166.
45. “for the safety of Nero”: Griffin, Nero, p. 102.
46. he had found the theater of Neapolis: See Letter 76.4, and the remarks of Griffin (Seneca, p. 360). I do not find it implausible, as Griffin does, that Seneca would have tempted the princeps’ anger with such a remark. It is cleverly couched—Seneca indicates that flute competitions, not singing, were going on in the theater at that time—yet it is still self-exculpating enough to register with readers whose good opinion mattered to the author. Here we again run into the problem of how many “secondary purposes” are present in Seneca’s writings. See the note here.
47. “the comet we saw for six months”: Natural Questions 7.21.3.
48. near the Circus Maximus: The account of the great fire followed here is that of Tacitus, Annals 15.38–45, not significantly contradicted by either Suetonius or Dio (except in the matter of Nero’s culpability—see next note).
49. Was Nero far enough gone: The question has bothered many historians. Tacitus (Annals 15.38.1), to his great credit, confessed his uncertainty on this point and recorded a disagreement among his sources. Dio (62.16.1), Suetonius (Nero 38), Pliny the Elder (Natural History 17.1.1), and the author of Octavia (lines 831–33) are all convinced of Nero’s guilt. This matter involves the modern historian in so many imponderables—above all the question of motive, which in the case of a Nero is truly beyond reach of speculation—that I have avoided taking any position. But I do note that a recent and highly esteemed scholar, Edward Champlin (Nero, pp. 185–91), has argued strongly, by way of new and ingenious arguments, that Nero did indeed set the blaze.
50. Christiani, and their founder Christus: The dispute over the authenticity of Annals 15.44, the first mention by a non-Christian author of Christ or Christians, has been almost as heated as the question of Nero’s arson. Already in 1907 Henry Furneaux inserted a long appendix on the topic into his edition of the Annals (pp. 2:416–27), and there have been many contributions to the debate since then. Most scholars are satisfied the passage is genuine.
51. the Colossus Neronis: Its height is variously given by Suetonius (Nero 38.1), Dio (66.15.1), and Pliny the Elder (Natural History 34.45). The colossus was reshaped after Nero’s death (or perhaps was originally designed by Nero) to suggest the god Helius (Roman Sol), and was moved to a position in front of the Flavian amphitheater, which thereby acquired its modern name, the Colosseum. It is not known how or when the statue was destroyed, sometime in the Middle Ages, but no trace of it survives.
52. Acratus, one of Nero’s trusted freedmen, and Secundus Carrinas: Named as Nero’s agents by Tacitus (Annals 15.45.3), with a typically devastating thumbnail sketch of the latter.
53. but on Nero’s terms: Seneca’s surrender of his wealth during the period after the fire is attested only by Dio (62.25.3) but perhaps also implied by Tacitus (Annals 15.64.6). Nero’s refusal to grant retirement, and Seneca’s subsequent feigning of illness, are found at Annals 15.45.5.
54. no reason to doubt the information: Tacitus (Annals 15.60.3) later refers to the report as though it were an established fact. Griffin (Seneca, p. 276, and “Imago Vitae Suae,” p. 48) withholds comment.
CHAPTER 7: SUICIDE (II) (A.D. 64–66)
1. “That which is undergirded by truth”: De Clementia 1.1.5, a passage obviously addressed to Romans concerned about the youth of the new princeps.
2. the failures weighed on him heavily: A key passage is Letters 8.3, where Seneca describes himself as suffering from the moral equivalent of skin lesions and says he has found the right path of life—philosophy—only late and after much straying. At Letters 56.9, Seneca speaks of having withdrawn from a position of power that had been distasteful to begin with, after that position became untenable, but since he uses his maddeningly vague first-person plural, it is unclear whether he is referring to himself or constructing a hypothetical situation. See Edwards, “Self-scrutiny and Self-transformation,” in Fitch, Oxford Readings: Seneca, p. 85.
3. his own moral state: In addition to the passage at 56.9 discussed in the previous note, where Seneca (or his hypothetical “we”) admits to still feeling the pull of ambition, there is the less ambiguous evidence of Letter 75.14–17, where Seneca situates his “we”—this time clearly meaning either himself, or himself and Lucilius—among those moral strivers who “have got beyond many great faults but not all.” Switching to the third person, Seneca describes the lot of a typical member of this class of strivers: “He has fled greed but still feels anger; he is no longer troubled by lust, but is still troubled by ambition” (14). Rolando Ferri (Octavia, p. 232), drawing a thumbnail sketch of Seneca from the facts of his political career, calls him “a wobbly sapiens vulnerable to sin and ambition,” which would also be an apt description of the title character of Thyestes.
4. almost certainly composed: On the dating of Thyestes, see here.
5. Why does Thyestes return to Argos: Tarrant’s (Seneca’s Thyestes, pp. 148–49) commentary deals with this question in insightful ways: “From the outset … Seneca hints that Thyestes may be less than fully committed to the ideals he professes.… Seneca [creates] a masterful portrait of a man who literally does not know his own mind.” In discussing Thyestes’ diatribe against wealth and power (lines 446–70), Tarrant (p.155) observes: “The gusto with which Thyestes enumerates the trappings of wealth seems a clear sign that he does not find this existence as distasteful as he claims.”
6. the disappearance of the sun: Anticipated at lines 120–21, then described as a fait accompli in lines 776–88 and the choral ode that follows. This element of the story seems to have been developed by Seneca out of a minor piece of the mythic tradition, which held that Zeus had caused the sun to reverse course and set in the East to help Atreus drive Thyestes out of Argos. In Seneca’s play, this reversal of the sun becomes a disappearance and assumes much larger thematic importance.
7. Are we, out of all generations: Thyestes, lines 875–80. Tarrant (Seneca’s Thyestes, p. 215), noting the unusual shift to the first person plural, comments that “it is tempting to see a meaning in these lines that projects beyond the dramatic context.”
8. broke up one recitation: Attested by Suetonius, Vita Lucani. The date is uncertain, but it must have preceded Nero’s outright ban on Lucan’s readings, a ban that Griffin (Nero, p. 158) is inclined to place at A.D. 64 despite the evidence of Dio (62.29.4) that it fell in 65.
9. border on sedition: The passages most often cited as glaring examples are 7:440–58, 640–46. Griffin (Nero, p. 159) has disputed the degree of oppositional inflation in later books but does not dispute that there is some; Ahl and Sullivan are more inclined to emphasize it.
10. a bon mot that later became legendary: Retold by Suetonius in Vita Lucani. As with all reported events in Lucan’s life, this one is difficult to date, but clearly a time after the souring of relations with Nero is indicated, perhaps 64.
11. too young to rule: Tacitus (Annals 15.52.3) reports that Piso feared Silanus as a potential rival; that indicates there would indeed have been support for Silanus’ accession. It is hard to explain then why the plot did no
t take shape around this man. Tacitus (Annals 16.7.4–16.9.5) adds to the mystery by making clear his great respect for Silanus’ character.
12. restoring the republic: There was apparently some fear that the consul Atticus Vestinus might seize the moment of regicide to proclaim the return of freedom, though Tacitus (Annals 15.52.4–5), with his report, implies that such a move would have had only self-serving motives.
13. hoped to enlist Seneca: I follow the account of Tacitus here rather than Dio (62.24.1), who makes Seneca a ringleader of the conspiracy.
14. arrival of this messenger: That Seneca was aware of the plot I think is beyond question, given Lucan’s participation, that of Epicharis (an intimate of Mela’s), and the urgent communiqués from Piso. But that issue has often been confused with the separate matter of his collaboration, itself a matter of grave dispute. See Koestermann, Tacitus: Annalen, pp. 309–10, for a summary of opposing views. Griffin (“Imago Vitae Suae,” pp. 49–50), while strongly asserting Seneca’s noninvolvement in the plot, has come close to acknowledging that he must nevertheless have had foreknowledge of it. This is important because if Seneca knew of the plot, he had the power to prevent it but did not, making him at least a passive supporter.
15. elaborate pleasantry: If it is accepted that Seneca was aware of the purpose of Piso’s entreaty, then there can be little doubt that the words he used in his sign-off were intended to convey a covert message, though W. H. Alexander opined otherwise in “The Enquête on Seneca’s Treason,” Classical Philology 47 (1952): 1–6. Indeed, Koestermann (Tacitus: Annalen, p. 297) takes these words as evidence that Seneca was well aware of the plot in hand. Griffin (“Imago Vitae Suae,” pp. 49–50) agrees the words carry a covert meaning but interprets them, improbably in my view, as a “warning” to Piso “against taking risks.”
16. a story heard and recorded: The plausibility of the report is perhaps increased by the fact that Seneca was old and had no children. Over the preceding century, the dynastic character of the principate had become its worst problem, such that Galba, three years hence, could claim as arguments for his own elevation to princeps that he was old and childless, and would of necessity choose a successor by adoption. Tacitus, Histories 1.16.
17. nor are many modern historians: Opinions have been expressed only by a few. Koestermann (Tacitus: Annalen, p. 4:309) is skeptical, and Veyne (Seneca, p. 168) even more so. Griffin (“Imago Vitae Suae,” p. 50) appears more equivocal, though in a private communication she has indicated to me that she also has grave doubts. More telling perhaps are the number of books and articles that do not deal with the report at all.
18. Piso, with his charm and affability: A portrait of Piso’s character is preserved in Laus Pisonis (Praise of Piso), a Neronian-era poem of uncertain authorship (perhaps by Lucan). Piso is portrayed in that work as a talented and convivial man who was adept at many performing arts and board games—hardly the type to lead a regicidal plot. Indeed, Piso vetoed the plan that would have most likely succeeded, an attack on Nero at Piso’s own villa.
19. went into high gear: Unless otherwise noted, all that follows in this chapter has been taken from Tacitus’ account of the Pisonian conspiracy, at the end of book 15 of Annals.
20. A similar strategy: According to the accounts of Plutarch and Suetonius, a senator named Tillius Cimber approached Julius Caesar with a petition for the recall of his brother. That allowed the other assassins to gather around in close proximity to their target.
21. offering Nero’s head as a gift: A piquant detail from Suetonius’ Vita Lucani.
22. as inscrutable as ever: Tacitus notes Seneca’s arrival from Campania at this moment as though it were significant, but then warily says he doesn’t know whether the timing was merely a coincidence or the result of foreknowledge. I agree with Koestermann (Tacitus: Annalen, p. 298) that foreknowledge is the far more likely explanation.
23. Tacitus declined to specify: Dio (62.5.2) says that Seneca gave his last literary efforts to an anti-Nero work and took steps to prevent it from falling into Nero’s hands. Perhaps this was the same work Tacitus refers to, saying that it was so widely known in his own time that he has no need to restate its contents.
24. Among the last to go: The death of Thrasea Paetus is the final episode in the extant portion of Tacitus’ Annals (16.21–35). Other deaths were required by Nero in the remaining two years of his reign, of course, but few were putatively connected to the Piso conspiracy.
25. Arulenus Rusticus: Tacitus, Annals 16.26.6–8. For Rusticus’ later history, see here in this book.
26. the stage of Pompey’s Theater: Details of what follows are taken from Tacitus, Annals 16.4–5, and Suetonius, Nero 4 and 23.
27. commoners who did not clap loudly enough: This abusive treatment is described by Tacitus (Annals 16.5) as a feature of the second Neronia; Suetonius (Nero 23), however, appears to situate them on Nero’s first tour of Greece in 66–67. Dio (62.15.3) reports that in Nero’s later years, spectators at his singing performances would pretend to faint in order to get safely out of the theater.
EPILOGUE: EUTHANASIA (A.D. 68 AND AFTER)
1. “No matter how many you kill”: Reported by Dio (62.18.3) as part of the aftermath of Agrippina’s murder, with the claim that the adage actually caused Nero to restrain his impulses.
2. Nero’s stepson Rufrius Crispinus: Suetonius, Nero 35.
3. Nero had poison: Details of the episode leading up to Nero’s death are taken from the extraordinary account of Suetonius, Nero 47–49.
4. “Too late,” he said: The famous phrase qualis artifex pereo, “What an artist dies with me,” are often described as Nero’s last words, but in fact Suetonius, who records them, instead says that Nero muttered them repeatedly as he oversaw preparations for disposal of his corpse, an hour or two before his death.
5. “in everyone’s hands”: Quintilian’s disquisition on Seneca’s style and influence can be found at Institutio Oratoria 10.1.125–31.
6. “I see the groves”: See Marcello Gigante, “Seneca tragico da Pompei all’Egitto,” Studi italiani di filologia classica 19 (2001): 89–104.
7. most agree it should be deattributed: The questioning of the attribution to Seneca began with Petrarch, according to Ferri (Octavia, p. 6 n. 15). Senecan authorship was defended in print in recent times by Berthe Marti, “Seneca’s Apocolocyntosis and Octavia: A Diptych,” American Journal of Philology 73 (1952): 24–36, and one or two other scholars have since then admitted to at least thinking the attribution possible.
8. princeps eruditorum, “princeps of the wise”: Pliny, Natural History 14.51, with discussion by Griffin, Seneca, p. 434.
9. Helvidius tried to get revenge: Tacitus, Histories 4.6.
10. dared Vespasian: As reported by Epictetus, who was quite possibly an eyewitness, in Discourses 1.2.19–24. For the evolution of the conflict between Stoics and princeps in the Flavian period, see Brunt, “Stoicism and the Principate,” pp. 7–35.
Bibliography
Abel, Karlhans. Bauformen in Senecas Dialogen. Heidelberg, 1967.
Ahl, Fred. Lucan: An Introduction. Ithaca, 1976.
Alexander, W. H. “Seneca’s Ad Polybium: A Reappraisal.” Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada 37 (1943): 33–55.
———. “The Enquête on Seneca’s Treason.” Classical Philology 47 (1952): 1–6.
———. “The Tacitean ’non liquet’ on Seneca.” University of California Publications in Classical Philology 14 (1952): 265–386.
———. “The Communiqué to the Senate on Agrippina’s Death.” Classical Philology 49 (1954): 94–97,
Asmis, Elizabeth. “Seneca on Fortune and the Kingdom of God.” In Seneca and the Self. Edited by Shadi Bartsch and David Wray. Cambridge, 2009.
Aveline, John. “The Death of Claudius.” Historia 53 (2004): 453–75.
Barnes, T. D. “The Composition of Cassius Dio’s Roman History.” Phoenix 38 (1984): 240–55.
Barrett, Anthony A. Caligula: The
Corruption of Power. London, 1989.
———. Agrippina: Sex, Power, and Politics in the Early Empire. New Haven, Conn., 1996.
Barton, Tamsyn. “The Inventio of Nero: Suetonius.” In Reflections of Nero: Culture, History, and Representation. Edited by Jás Elsner and Jamie Masters. Chapel Hill, N.C., 1994.
Bartsch, Shadi. Ideology in Cold Blood: A Reading of Lucan’s “Civil War.” Cambridge, Mass., 1997.
———. “Senecan Metaphor and Stoic Self-instruction.” In Seneca and the Self. Edited by Shadi Bartsch and David Wray. Cambridge, 2009.
Bartsch, Shadi, and David Wray, eds. Seneca and the Self. Cambridge, 2009.
Bauman, Richard A. Women and Politics in Ancient Rome. London, 1992.
Bellincioni, Maria. Potere ed etica in Seneca: Clementia e voluntas amica. Brescia, 1984.
Berry, D. H., and Andrew Erskine, eds. Form and Function in Roman Oratory. Cambridge and New York, 2010.
Bishop, John. Nero: The Man and the Legend. New York, 1964.
Bolton, J. D. P. “Was the Neronia a Freak Festival?”: Classical Quarterly 42 (1948): 82–90.
Bowman, Alan K., Edward Champlin, and Andrew Lintott, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 10, The Augustan Empire: 43 b.c. to a.d. 69. Cambridge, 1996.
Bowersock, Glen W. “Seneca’s Greek.” In Seneca uomo politico e l’età di Claudio e di Nerone. Edited by Arturo De Vivo and Elio Lo Cascio. Bari, 2003.
Boyle, A. J. Tragic Seneca: An Essay in the Theatrical Tradition. New York, 1997.
Boyle, A. J., ed. Seneca’s Phaedra: Introduction, Text, Translation and Notes. Liverpool and Wolfeboro, 1987.
———. Octavia: Attributed to Seneca. New York, 2008.
Bradley, K. R. Suetonius’ Life of Nero: An Historical Commentary. Brussels, 1978.
Branigan, Keith, and P. J. Fowler. The Roman West Country. North Pomfret and North Vancouver, 1976.
Braund, Susanna, ed. Seneca, De Clementia. Oxford, 2009.