¹ For Julius Caesar’s will and his ‘adoption’ of C. Octavius, the later Augustus, see Schmitthenner, W.Oktavian und das Testament Cäsars² (Munich, 1968);Google Scholar and Alfòldi, A.Ant. u. Abendland 21 (1975), 1–11.Google Scholar On Tiberius’ adoption by Augustus, and his inheritance of Augustus’ property, see Suet. Tib. 15, 23; Tac. i 3. 3, 7. 7, 8. 1. Tiberius in his will divided his property between his grandsons, Gaius (Caligula) (son of Tiberius’ adopted son Germanicus) and Tiberius Gemellus, but the Senate annulled the will and Gaius became sole heir (Suet. Tib. 76; Gaius 14; Dio lix 1).

² Suet. Gaius 60; cf. Jos. xix 190–200, for the extirpation of Gaius’ family. See Schulz, O.T.Das Wesen des römischen Kaisertums (Paderborn, 1916), pp. 36–41Google Scholar for the reality of the republican restoration.

³ Cf. Tac. Hist, i 16. 1.

⁴ This is the dominant theme of the speech of the consul, Sentius Saturninus, in the Senate after Gaius’ assassination (Jos. xix 167–84), which Josephus took seriously, whatever the intentions of his, unknown, Roman source — see Feldman, L.H.Latomus 21 (1962), 320–33;Google Scholar Syme, Tacitus, pp. 287–8; Timpe 474 n. 1, 476–8, 481–8, 490–1.

⁵ Gibbon, E.The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 1, chap. 3.Google Scholar

⁶ Marquardt, J.Römische Staatsverwaltung 2 (Leipzig, 1876), 248–9; 298–300.Google Scholar

⁷ Marquardt, op. cit. pp. 296–7; Crook, J.Law and Life of Rome (London, 1967), pp. 57,Google Scholar 63, 80; Weaver, P.R.C.Familia Caesaris (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 2–8,CrossRefGoogle Scholar 45, 133 and passim.

⁸ On Gaius’ succession plans, see Balsdon, pp. 32, 37, 42.

⁹ Jos. xix 162–5, 219–20, 223–6, 234–47; BJ ii 204–14; Dio lx 1, 2–4; Suet. Cl. 10. See also the coins with the legends ‘Imper. recept.’ and ‘praetor, recept.’ (BMC Vol. I. clii-cliii, 165–9), which were struck during the first eight years of his reign; Sutherland, pp. 126–7, 136–7; D. Sulzmann, Arch.Anz. 1976, 256–8; Suet. Cl. 21. 4.

¹⁰ Dio lx l. 4;3.1.

¹¹ Jos. xix 217; Suet. Cl.7; cf. the coins Claudius struck to honour Germanicus (BMC Vol. I. clii, clviii, 193–4), and his wife Agrippina (ib. clvili, 194) — as Gaius had done (ib. cxliv–cxlvii, 147–9, 154–6, 158–63); also to honour his father, Nero Drusus, the first Germanicus (ib. cli, clv, clviii, 178–9, 181–2, 186–7, 192–3, 199), and his wife Antonia (ib. cli, clv–clvi, clviii, 180, 188–93). Sutherland, pp. 126, 131, cf. ib. 107–9,112–13 on Gaius’ coinage.

¹² Jos. xix 251–2. Swan, 149–59, has satisfactorily emended and explained the proper names in Josephus’ text, and has shown that Vinicianus was not aiming at making either M. Vinicius or himself emperor (despite Dio lx 15. 1).

¹³ See PIR ¹ V 445 (Vinicius) and 25 (Valerius).

¹⁴ Jos. xix 160, 166–84, 185, 263–4; BJ ii 205. This sentiment was still strong twenty-four years later (Tac. xv 68–9).

¹⁵ Gibbon, loc. cit.; Jos. BJ ii 208.

¹⁶ Mercury tells the Fates, ‘Patere mathematicos aliquando verum dicere, qui illum, ex quo princeps factus est, omnibus annis, omnibus mensibus efferunt. Et tamen non est mirum si errant et horam eius nemo novit; nemo enim umquam illum natum putavit’ (Ludus 3); contrast, however, Suet. Cl. 31, who says that after Claudius became emperor, he enjoyed excellent health, except for severe stomach pains.

¹⁷ Suet. Cl. 11. 2; cf. Tac. xii 25. 1; Ludus 9–10; Momigliano, p.77; Sutherland, pp. 124–5;D. Sulzmann,Arch. Anz. 1976, 259.

¹⁸ Tac. vi 46.

¹⁹ See Jos. xix 224–53 passim; BJ ii 209–13. The danger was not confined to Rome: when Galba, commander on the Upper Rhine, heard the news of Gaius’ death, his friends urged him to make a bid for the empire (thus outdoing Lentulus Gaetulicus, and anticipating Vitellius), and Claudius was deeply grateful that he refused (Suet. Galba 7.1). Galba cannot have been proposed as a candidate in the Senate in the hours after Gaius’ death (as is thought by Charlesworth, CAH x 667; Stevenson, ib. 812; Scramuzza, p. 55, and others), since he was not on the spot, and his reaction to the news could not have been known in Rome until at least ten days after the event, and probably much later, since in January the Alpine and Apennine passes would have been snowbound. For similar reasons, Scribonianus, governor of Dalmatia, could not have been proposed (Charles-worth, loc. cit., cf. Dio lx 15. 2).

²⁰ For the continuing prestige of great republican families under the early empire, cf. e.g. Tac. ii 27 (Scribonius Libo Drusus; cf. Syme, p. 400 n. 6), xiii 47, xiv 57 (Cornelius Sulla), XV 48 (C. Calpurnius Piso); Hist, i 15 (Galba and Piso Licinianus).

²¹ For the importance of descent from Augustus, see Tac. iii 4 (after Germanicus’ death his widow Agrippina is ‘solum Augusti sanguinem’), vi 46 (Tiberius cannot leave the empire to anyone outside the family), xiii 1 (Nero’s rivals at his accession, ‘quod tunc spectaretur, e Caesarum posterie’) and 19, xiv 22, xv 35 (the fate of these rivals); also Ludus 10–11, where Augustus attacks Claudius for killing Augustus’ relatives; and see Gagé, J.RA 55 (1934), 11–36,Google Scholar on the prestige which the deified Augustus conferred on his descendants. Cf. Kraft 100–9 (= pp. 55–64) esp. 102 (= p. 57), for Claudius’ dubious claim to the throne, since he did not belong to the Julian house.

²² For Antonia see PIR² A 886; Gallivan (Latomus 33 [1974], 395) says Messalina was her mother, but on the next page he rightly affiliates her to Aelia Paetina (PIR² A 305). Gallivan has also collected the material for Octavia (PIR² C 1110) (Latomus 33 [1974], 116–17) and comes to the conclusion that she was born in 39 (despite Tac. xiv 64, which implies she was born in 42 or 43), which must be about right (early 40 is also possible), and that her brother Britannicus (PIR² C 820) was born on 12 February, 41 (despite the confusions caused by Suet. Cl. 27. 2 and Tac. xii 25), which is certainly right. See esp. the sesterces of A.D. 41, with rev. ‘Spes Augusta’, BMC Vol. I. clvi and 182. Grant, M.Roman Imperial Money (1954), p. 110Google Scholar n. +, is wrong.

²³ Suet. Cl. 27. 2; see previous note.

²⁴ Claudius intended Britannicus as his successor from his earliest days; full references in Meise, p. 150 n. 108. Seneca, Ad Polyb. 12. 5 is especially important.

²⁵ The standard works which deal with Claudius all treat the problem of the succession simply as a choice between Britannicus and Domitius (Nero) and imply that it became acute only after Claudius decided to marry Agrippina, in 48. No authors apparently realize that if Claudius had died while these two were still children, neither would have become emperor; yet all standard works discuss at length Augustus’ plans for the succession, including the very similar problem posed by his grandsons’ youth.

²⁶ Implied by Esser, A.Cäsar und die julisch-claudischen Kaiser im biologisch-ärtzlichen Blickfeld (1958), p. 169,Google Scholar who states, without argument, that she was about 35 when she married Claudius, in A.D. 37 or 38 (see below).

²⁷ Herzog-Hauser, G. and Wotke, F.RE 8Google Scholar A. 246.

²⁸ Hanslik, R.RE 8Google Scholar A. 129.

²⁹ Bayer, E.Historia 17 (1968), 122Google Scholar n. 27.

³⁰ Syme, p. 437 n. 5; Meise, p. 152 n. 122, who does not understand Syme’s reasons.

³¹ Sources for Claudius’ physical and mental defects: Suet. Cl. 2. 1, 3. 2, 4. 1–6, 30; Tac. vi 46; Dio lix 23. 5, lx 2. 1–2; Jos xix 258; Ludus 1. 2, 3. 2, 5. 2–3, 11.2; Juv. iii 238, vi 623. Cf. Binder, G.RhM 117 (1974), 297–8.Google Scholar Habits and companions: Suet. Cl. 5, 33. 1–2, 34–6, 40. 1; Tac. xii 49; Dio lx 2. 4–6. Contempt for him: Suet. Gai. 23. 3; Cl. 8, 9. l;Ner. 6. 2;Tac. iii 18;Ludus passim. Bankruptcy: Suet. Cl. 9.2.

³² For the first, cf. Claudius’ alleged popularity under Gaius (Suet. Cl. 7). For the second, see Salmon, , History of the Roman World (1968), p. 147.Google Scholar On the implications of the marriage see Oost, S.I.AJPh 79 (1958), 122Google Scholar n. 21, and esp. Bayer (n. 29 above), 122.

³³ Suet. Cl. 26–7. The marriage certainly took place some years before 20 (Tac. iii 29), and Suet. Cl. 26. 1 may suggest a date soon after the younger Julia’s disgrace in 8. Urgulanilla was granddaughter of Livia’s friend Urgulania, and her father, M.Plautius Silvanus (PIR¹ P 361), had been Augustus’ colleague in his last consulship, 2 B.C., and gained triumphal ornaments for good service in the Pannonian revolt. Suet. Ner. 35.4 may be evidence for some otherwise unknown link between the Plautii and the imperial house.

^33a Paetina was ‘e familia Tuberonum’ (Tac. xii 1), with a consular father (Suet. Cl. 26. 2); neither of the two ‘possibles’ is particularly distinguished — see PIR² loc. cit. Antonia’s marriage: Dio lx 5.7; she was still young enough to be a possible wife for Piso and for Nero in 65 (Tac. xv 53; Suet. Ner. 35. 4; cf. Meise, pp. 213–14).

³⁴ Tac. xiii 1. See Rogers, , TAPhA 86 (1955), 195–7.Google Scholar

³⁵ PIR² I 641 and 674. See Tables I, II and III (at end).

³⁶ Balsdon, p. 75.

³⁷ Suet. Ner. 6. 3. Domitia Lepida, mother of Messalina, was put to death in Claudius’ last days (Tac. xii 64–5); Hayne, L.AC 42 (1973), 502–3,Google Scholar confuses her with her sister, Domitia, ex-wife of Passienus Crispus, killed by Nero in 59 (Tac. xiv 15; Suet. Ner. 34. 5). See Table III.

³⁸ Above, p. 53 and n. 12.

³⁹ Meise, p. 142 n. 78.

⁴⁰ The marriage took place in 33 (Tac. vi 27); the date of Plautus’ birth is unknown.

⁴¹ On this family see Meise, pp. 67, 101, 173, 191–2, with the references there; esp. Mommsen, Ges. Schr. viii. 195–202 and the (often conjectural) family tree in PIR ² iv. 351. See Tables I, V and VI.

⁴² PIR ² L 190; on the family see Mommsen, Ges. Schr. viii. 246–55 ;Syme, pp. 380, 385–6 and JRS 50 (1960), 12–20 (with stemma, p. 16); Meise, p. 144. Gaius may well have punned on Crassus’ last name, ‘aut frugi hominem esse oportere dictitans aut Caesarem’ (Suet. Gai. 37. 1).

⁴³ Pompeius (PIR ¹ P 477) has no article in RE or in the Kleiner Pauly, though all his brothers have (Kleiner Pauly iii. 641a 25 confuses him with his brother Marcus). He was not yet adult under Gaius (Dio lx 5. 8–9), so probably was born c. 22.

⁴⁴ On the younger Faustus Sulla see Tac. xiii 47. For these relationships see Tables III and IV.

⁴⁵ On him see Sumner, G.V.HSCP 74 (1970), 289–90.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ On Claudius’ feelings about him see ILS 212, col.ii lines 14–16. See also Wilkes, J.CW 65 (1972), 197.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See Seager, , JRS 63 (1973), 256:Google Scholar ‘Claudius’ libertas Augusta [BMC Vol. I. clvii, 185, 192; Sutherland, p. 133 and n. 4] is rightly seen as a counter to romantic republicanism as well as a rejection of the despotism of Gaius.’

⁴⁸ See above, n. 19.

⁴⁹ Appius was in Rome in 38 as member of the Fratres Arvales (Smallwood, Documents no. 3, lines 14, 20, 29, 37; no. 4, lines 1, 8, 17, 23, 28, 34; no. 5, line 3); on 1 Jan. 39 he was present as ‘magister’ of the brotherhood (ib. no. 7, line 3), but does not appear again during Gaius’ reign, presumably because he had been sent to Spain. Galba with only one legion was to show the potential of Spain as a base in 68; in 42 Tarraconensis probably still had three, no doubt with an appropriate complement of auxiliaries, so that it dominated the neighbouring unarmed provinces. (Mommsen, , Ròm. Gesch. v⁸ [Berlin, 1919], 59–60;Google Scholar Dessau, Gesch. d. ròm. Kaiserzeit ii [Berlin, 1930], 451. Ritterling [RE XII. 1549–51], however, held it was Gaius, not Claudius, who moved IV Macedonica from Spain).

Appius’ exact place in the Junian family is not clear: Weidemann, U. (Acta Classica 6 [1963], 138–45)Google Scholar proposed that in Tac. iii 68, where the MS. reads ‘Cn. Lentulus separanda Silani materna bona, quippe alia parente geniti … dixit’, instead of Madvig’s emendation ‘Atia’, which had won general approval (e.g. Hohl, RE X. 1088; Syme, , JRS 39 [1949], 8–9),Google Scholar ‘Appia’ be read; against this is that it seems unlikely that any women could be described by praenomina in the triumviral or Augustan period (despite Liber de Praenominibus 3 and 7, and ILS 6920; I owe these references to T.R.S. Broughton’s kindness). Weidemann’s view has been accepted by L. Petersen in PIR ², but Wiseman, T. (HSCP 74 [1970], 212Google Scholar n. 32) and Rawson, E. (Historia 22 [1973], 223Google Scholar n. 23) seem to have doubts.

⁵⁰ The date of Antonia’s betrothal to Pompeius is unknown, since no ancient writer mentions it, and it is possible that it occurred in Gaius’ reign, before Pompeius fell from favour (Ludus 11. 2; Suet. Gai. 35. 1 ; Dio lx 5. 8–9. ILS 9339, line 6, shows Pompeius still bearing the cognomen ‘Magnus’, and appointed to a priesthood in 40, so his eclipse can only have lasted a few months); it could have been at the same time as Claudius’ marriage to Messalina, but modern opinion is unanimous that it happened in 41, immediately before the marriage. Dio lx 5. 7 (cf. Suet. Cl. 27. 2, 29. 1) shows that Antonia’s marriage and Octavia’s betrothal were practically simultaneous. On the political implications see Kraft 114–15 (= pp. 69–70); Syme, , JRS 50 (1960), 18;Google Scholar Meise, pp. 144’5.

⁵¹ Vigintiviri: Dio lx 5. 8; quaestors: Pompeius, ILS 955 (quaest. Augusti); Silanus, ILS 957; prefects: Dio, loc. cit.; Arvals: Smallwood, no. 13, lines 2, 14, 23; acceleration: Dio, loc. cit. In general, see McAlindon, D.AJPh 77 (1956), 126.Google Scholar

⁵² Marcellus: Dio liii 27. 5 (marriage), 28. 3 (acceleration); Tiberius, ibid.;Tac. iii 29; Drusus: Dio liv 10. 4;Tac. loc. cit.

⁵³ Nero Caesar: Tac. loc. cit.; Lepidus: Dio lix 22. 6–7.

⁵⁴ Dio lx 21.5.

⁵⁵ Dio lx 23. 1.

⁵⁶ Suet. Tib. 6. 4.

⁵⁷ Dio lx 25. 7, in 45, at a festival Claudius had vowed for the success of his expedition.

⁵⁸ Dio li 21.3.

⁵⁹ ILS 955.

⁶⁰ ILS 957; Tac. xii 3; Dio lx 31.7; Suet. Cl. 24. 3; cf. 17. 3, 28. l; Dio lx 23.2; Peine, S.Berliner Stud. z. class. Philol. 2 (1885), 358–74,Google Scholar who gives full details, and shows that not all senators who took part in the British expedition received triumphal ornaments. See also Syme, , Danubian Papers (Bucharest, 1971), pp. 27–8.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Mommsen, Ges. Schr. viii. 246–55.

⁶² Legate and pontifex: ILS 954; CIL vi 1445; triumphal ornaments and appearance in the British triumph ‘equo phalerato et in veste palmata’: Suet. Cl. 17. 3, cf. Peine (n. 60 above), 360–1.

⁶³ Ludus 11 : ‘hominem tarn similem sibi quam ovo ovum’.

^63a Cf. Tac. i 3, xii 25; Oost, , AJPh 79 (1958), 130Google Scholar n. 40. See now Jameson, S.Historia 24 (1975), 287.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Res Gestae 14.1; Tac. xii 41.

⁶⁵ Res Gestae 14. 2; BMC Vol. I. cxvi–cxvii, 88–91; Tac. loe. cit.; BMC Vol. I. cliv–clv, 175–7; Dio lix 8.1; Beringer, W.RE 22. 2299–2303.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Meise, pp. 91–2, 110–12, 119–21, on the conspiracy; id. pp. 139–40, on the recall of the two princesses, with full references.

⁶⁷ Suet. Galba 5.1.

⁶⁸ Suet. Ner. 6. 3; Vita Passieni Crispi; PIR ¹ P 109.

⁶⁹ Meise, pp. 140–2, with references; add Coffey, M.Lustrum 6 (1961), 259.Google Scholar Livilla’s epitaph: Smallwood, no. 87.

⁷⁰ Meise, pp. 142–3, with references; add McAlindon, , AJPh 77 (1956), 124.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Meise, p. 147 and n. 100.

⁷² See n. 49 above. Appius had all the attributes to be dangerous: high birth, influential relations and friends with experience of plotting against emperors (Tac. vi 9; Stewart, Z.AJPh 74 [1953], 70–85;Google Scholar Mommsen, Ges. Schr. viii. 195–202; note particularly the connexions between the Lentuli Gaetulici and Appius’ branch of the Silani: PIR ² I 835 and 836; McAlindon, op. cit. 121), and the command of legions. On the implications of his marriage to Domitia, see Lehmann, H.Claudius und seine Zeit (Gotha, 1858), p. 129,Google Scholar though his conclusions are partially vitiated by incorrect assumptions about Appius’ place in the family. McAlindon (op. cit. 117–18) and Groag (RE III. 2794) believe Appius was involved in a real plot. Dorey’s suggestion (Das Altertum 12 [1966], 147), that Claudius had chosen him as a confidant, is baseless.

⁷³ He had been accused, together with Appius, of maiestas in 32 (Tac. vi 9).

⁷⁴ PIR ¹ P 564; see esp. Jos. xix 263–4; BJ ii 205; cf. Dio lix 29. 5 for his hypocrisy. See also Stewart (n. 72 above), 72–3, 76–7; Timpe, 490–1; Pomponius was half-brother of Gaius’ wife Caesonia, and of Corbulo, and stepson of Suillius (Cichorius, C.Römische Studien [Leipzig, 1922], pp. 430–1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁵ McAlindon’.s attempt (op. cit. 128 n. 156) to dissociate Pomponius from Scribon-ianus’ rising, by an argument from silence, is not persuasive.

⁷⁶ Suet. Gai. 56; Dio lix 25.8.

⁷⁷ Tac. i 17; cf. Hist, ii 21. The dislike was probably increased by the gratuity of 15,000 sesterces per man which Claudius paid the Praetorians at his accession (Suet. Cl. 10. 4; Jos. xix 247 says 5000 drachmae = 20,000 sesterces); there is no evidence the provincial armies received anything.

⁷⁸ E.g. Cary, M. and Scullard, H.H.History of Rome ³ (1975), p. 356;Google Scholar Momigliano, p. 22; Scullard, H.H.From the Gracchi to Nero ³ (1970), p. 300;Google ScholarSalmon, E.T.History of the Roman World ⁶ (1968), pp. 158–9;Google ScholarCharlesworth, M.P.CAH 10 671.Google Scholar Scaramuzza does not mention it at all. Balsdon (pp. 71 and 107) and Syme (p. 257) take a more serious view, as did Lehmann (pp. 204–5), following Tac. Hist, i 89.

⁷⁹ Suet. Cl. 35. 2; Dio lx 15.4.

⁸⁰ Tac. ii 52; PIR ² F 576.

⁸¹ Tac. i 13; cf. his obituaries, Tac. vi 48; Dio lviii 27. 4.

⁸² On family and friends see Dio lx 15. 3; Syme, , JRS 45 (1955), 23;Google ScholarMcAlindon, , AJPh 77 (1956), 125–6.Google ScholarCIL iii Suppl. 9864a shows Camillus was in command in Dalmatia under Gaius; his predecessor was L. Volusius Saturninus (PIR¹ V 661; Hanslik, RE Suppl. ix. 1861). Wilkes, J., Dalmatia (1969), pp. 82–4,Google Scholar unfortunately gives only a brief and inaccurate account of Camillus’ rising. For Camillus’ confidence see Suet. Cl. 35. 2.

⁸³ Tac. i 26; cf. Hist, i 84.

⁸⁴ Tac. Hist, i 89; Suet. Cl. 13. 2 ‘intra quintum diem oppressus est’ — there is no basis for Sherwin-White’s, A.N. statement (The Letters of Pliny, a historial and social commentary [Oxford, 1966], p. 249)Google Scholar that the revolt lasted fifteen days —; Orosius vii 6.7,8. 2, apparently copying Suetonius.

⁸⁵ Volaginius: Tac. Hist, ii 75. Dio (lx 15. 3) states, and Pliny (Ep. iii 16.9) implies, that Camillus committed suicide; for the difficulty of apportioning credit, or blame, cf. Tac. Hist, i 44.

⁸⁶ Both, the Seventh and the Eleventh, received the title ‘Claudia pia fidelis’ from the Senate at Claudius’ request (Dio lv 23. 3–4, lx 15. 4; Ritterling, RE XII. 1368–72, 1617). Individuals were also honoured (Tac. Hist, ii 75; Suet. Otho 1. 2; Dio lx 15. 4; ILS 967, elucidated by Groag, WSt 54 [1936], 192–5; Keppie, L.J.F., Britannia 2 [1971], 154–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar and n. 36). Note also the ala Claudia nova stationed in Dalmatia (Cichorius, RE I. 1237–8).

⁸⁷ Cf. Syme, , JRS 50 (1960), 18–19.Google Scholar On the revolt as turning-point in Claudius’ reign, see McAlindon, , AJPh 78 (1957), 280–1.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Suet, . Otho 1. 2;Google ScholarPliny, , Ep. 3 16.Google Scholar 7–8; Sherwin-White, , Commentary, p. 249.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Dio lx 15. 5–16. 7; cf. Tac. xv 56–71.

⁹⁰ Tac. xiii 43.

⁹¹ Certainly in 47 (Tac. xi 4. 1, 5.1). On Suillius see Dorey, , Das Altertum 12 (1966), 149–50.Google Scholar

⁹² Ludus 13. 5; cf. 11. 5, 14. 1. However, Claudius spared Camillus’ son (Tac. xii 52), and the children of others condemned (Dio lx 16.2).

⁹³ Dio lx l5.5.

⁹⁴ Dio lx 16. 6; Pliny, , Ep. 3 16.Google Scholar 6–13, with Sherwin-White’s commentary ad loc.; vi 24. 5; Martial i 13; Tac. xvi 34; ILS 6261. For her descendants, see Sherwin-White, p. 243; McAlindon, , AJPh 77 (1956), 113.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Quintilian quotes from Domitus Afer’s speech in her defence, Inst. Or. viii 5. 16, ix 2. 20,3.66,4.31.

⁹⁶ It was very widely publicized, in all media: see, e.g., BMC Vol. I. cliv, 168–71, 198; Smallwood, nos. 43b, 45; Suet. a. 17; Dio lx 22.1–2, 23; Seneca, ad. Polyb. 13.2; id.(?) Anthol. Lat. (ed. Ae. Baehrens) 29–36.

⁹⁷ Parker, H.M.D., The Roman Legions (reprint 1958), pp. 129–32;Google ScholarFrere, S., Britannia (1967), pp. 61–2.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ PIR¹ V 500; Suet. Vit. 2. 4; Dio lx 21. 2. He was in high favour with the freedmen and Messalina (Tac. xi 2–3; Suet. Vit. 2. 5), and with the emperor (Suet. Vit. 3. 1; Tac. xii 4). He was an accomplished time-server (Suet. locc. citt.; Dio lix 27. 2–6; Tac. vi 32, xi 34, xii 4, 5–6; note especially his quick change from Messalina, Tac. xi 2–3 and 33, to Agrippina, ib. xii 4 and esp. 42), but obviously possessed considerable talents and energy (Tac. vi 32, 36–7; Suet. Vit. 2–4; Dio, loc. cit.; Scramuzza, p. 96; Dorey, , Das Altertum 12 (1966), 144–7.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Suet. Galba 7. 1. Dorey (op. cit. 148), however, greatly exaggerates Galba’s importance under Claudius.

¹⁰⁰ Jos. xix 166–85; Eutropius vii 13.

¹⁰¹ See Höbner, E., Hermes 16 (1881), 524–6;Google ScholarBang, M., in Friedländer, L., Sittengeschichte⁹ 4 (Leipzig, 1921), 63–4;Google ScholarSyme, , CQ 27 (1933), 143;CrossRefGoogle ScholarFrere, S., Britannia (1967), pp. 65–7.Google Scholar On M. Vinicius see also Premerstein, A.v., JÖAI 1933, 140, and 1935, 60–81;Google ScholarGroag, , RE 3. 2796;Google ScholarHanslik, , RE IXA. 110–19.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Dio lx 21.5.

¹⁰³ Tac. ii 41. Tiberius’ son Drusus and the emperor Gaius had both celebrated ovations (Tac. iii 19; Suet. Gai. 49. 2).

¹⁰⁴ One was M. Arrecinus Clemens (PIR² A 1072); the other’s name is unknown (Ensslin, RE XXII. 2423). Jos. xix 37 mentions Clemens only; Suet. Gai. 56 emphatically implicates both; Dio lix 29. 1 mentions only one, but 25. 8 (Zon. and Exc. Vat.) includes both.

¹⁰⁵ Jos xix 267.

¹⁰⁶ Cf. Otho’s position in 69 (Tac. Hist, i 46).

¹⁰⁷ Dio lx 23. 2; Ensslin, RE XXII. 2408.

¹⁰⁸ Dio lx 18. 3; cf. Ludus 13. 5. See Meise, p. 143 n. 78 for an uncertain hypothesis about his political connexions.

¹⁰⁹ He is almost certainly ‘Rufius Pomfilius’ (PIR¹ P 510), Catonius’ colleague as prefect in the underworld (Ludus 13. 5 ; cf. Stein, RE IA. 1202).

¹¹⁰ Tac. xi 1,4, 31, 33; xii 42. Cf. Meise, pp. 143–4.

¹¹¹ Suet. Cl. 11.l; Dio lx 3. 5. This is the significance of the coin legend’ex S.C. ob cives servatos’ within oak wreath (BMC Vol. I. clii, clvi, 164–5, 167, 181): Claudius had not executed his rivals, and also had averted civil war.

¹¹² On second consulships under the Julio-Claudians, see Premerstein, v., JÖAI 1935, 77;Google Scholar Syme, CQ 27 (1933), 142–3; McAlindon, , AJPh 78 (1957), 283–4,Google Scholar who points out the remarkably high mortality among holders of second consulships under Claudius.

¹¹³ Dio lx 27. 4 (E. Cary’s Loeb translation — ‘Messalina … suspected that he had killed his wife Julia’ — is wrong; cf. Dio lx 8. 5). On Vinicius see notes 45 and 101, and Tac. vi 15.

¹¹⁴ Dio lx 27. 1–3.

¹¹⁵ Suet. Cl. 13. 2;Dio 1x 27. 5.

¹¹⁶ Dio lx 29. 4. Cary’s Loeb edition (following Boissevain) places lx 29–34 at the beginning of Vol. 8, and calls them lxi 29–34 (sic); they are followed by lxi 1–10.

¹¹⁷ Gallus was exiled, Corvinus’ fate is unknown (he does not appear in the Ludus), his brother was killed before 47; see Suet. Cl. 13. 2; Dio lx 27. 5; Ludus 13. 5; McAlindon, , AJPh 77 (1956), 129–30;Google Scholar 78 (1957), 282 n. 35.

¹¹⁸ See also Ludus 13. 5; Suet. Cl. 27. 2;Tac. Hist. i 48; Dio lx 29. 6a, 30. 6a, 31. 7. Mommsen (Ges. Schr. viii. 250 n. 7) pointed out that in Ludus 11.2 the words following Crassum Magnum Scriboniam, which the MSS. present as tristionias assarionem or something similar, conceal epithets qualifying these three victims, not further proper names. The most attractive emendation is Herescu’s, N.I. (RhM 105 [1962], 263–9),Google Scholar who reads tristriones assariorum, i.e. ‘three oxen-worth an as each’.

¹¹⁹ This is illustrated by the imperial coin from Caesarea in Cappadocia (BMC Vol. I. clxi, 199 no. 242, pl. 34. 8), obverse, ‘Messallina Augusti’ around a portrait of the empress; rev. ‘Octavia Britannicus Antonia’, Claudius’ three children.

¹²⁰ Agrippina was now wife, or more likely widow, of the wealthy orator Passienus Crispus (PIR¹ P 109), who had been consul a second time in 44. On him see Suet. Vita Passieni (= Schol. Juv. iv 81); Pliny, NH xvi 242; Suet. Ner. 6. 3; Syme, p. 328 and n. 12. Agrippina allegedly poisoned him (Schol. Juv. loc. cit.); cf. Tacitus’ heavy irony (xii 6) in making L. Vitellius say she is ‘provisu deum vidua’, and see Syme, p. 331 n.3.

¹²¹ The story (Suet. Ner. 6. 4) that Messalina intended to kill him is highly suspect, for the attempt would surely not have been bungled and abandoned (see also Meise, p. 142). For his claims see Tac. xi 11–12; Kraft 115 (= p. 70).

¹²² See n. 42.

¹²³ Ludus 11. 2.

¹²⁴ Suet. Cl. 29. 2; Meise (p. 146 and n. 93) disputes this, unconvincingly.

¹²⁵ Suet. Cl. 29. 1–2; Dio lx 29. 6a, 31. 7. Oddly enough, McAlindon (AJPh 77 [1956], 126), Syme (p. 259) and others deny Messalina’s involvement; contra, Groag, RE XIII. 343. Pompeius’ brothers survived (Syme, pp. 385–6), and the family continued its unhappy involvement in high politics at least till Hadrian’s reign (PIR² C 259).

¹²⁶ Tac. xiii 23; Suet. Cl. 27. 2; Dio lx 30. 6a. There was a child from this marriage (Dio, loc. cit.), which apparently did not survive infancy.

¹²⁷ Tac. xi 1–2; Dio lx 27. 1–3, 29. 4, 31. 5 (where Cary’s Loeb translation is wrong: read ‘the gardens … were the cause of his ruin’). For Asiaticus’ character see Seneca, Dial, ii 18. 2; for Claudius’ dislike, Smallwood, no. 369 (the Lyons Tablet), col. ii lines 14–15. His influence in Gaul: Tac. loc. cit.; CIL xii 1929; and note that Vitellius chose his son to be his daughter’s husband in 69 (Tac. Hist, i 59; Weynand, RE VIIA. 2344–6). On the dangers of a Gallic rising see Mommsen, Ges. Schr. iv. 333–5. Tacitus’ account of Asiaticus’ end has certainly been stylized, as an example of an ‘exitus illustris viri’ (F.A. Marx, Philol. 92 [1937], 83–103, esp. 99–100). See also Dorey,Das Altertum 12 (1966), 146.

¹²⁸ On Silius’ father (PIR¹ S 507; cos. A.D. 13) see A.E. and Gordon, J.S.AJPh 72 (1951), 283–92.Google Scholar and 74 (1953), 421–2. See also his paternal grandfather and uncles, P. Silius Nerva, P. Silius, and A. Licinius Nerva Silianus (PIR¹ S 512, 506; PIR² L 224), and his mother Sosia Galla (ib. S 563). His first wife was a Junia Silana (PIR² I 864), apparently sister of Gaius’ wife Junia Claudilla, and either cousin or niece of Appius Silanus; he divorced her to be free to marry Messalina (Tac. xi 12). See also Mcalindon, AJPh 77 (1956), 123.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Tac. xi 27; Meise, pp. 122–69, esp. 122–38, 152–68, who rightly emphasizes the importance of [Seneca], Octavia as the only evidence with bias in Messalina’s favour.

¹³⁰ Tac.xi 12; Juv. x 331.

¹³¹ Tac. xi 29–38. Herzog-Hauser and Wotke (RE VIIIA. 252) do not believe there was a plot; contrast L. Wickert, ib. XXII. 2183.

¹³² Tac. Xii 65.

¹³³ Above, n. 33. Claudius divorced her ‘ex levibus offensionibus’ (Suet. Cl. 26. 2), which E.F. Leon (TAPhA 1948, 85–6) suggests is equivalent to ‘mental cruelty’.

¹³⁴ What disqualified the other unmarried descendant of Augustus, L. Silanus’ sister Junia Calvina, ‘festivissimam omnium puellarum’ (Ludus 8. 2)?

¹³⁵ Dorey, Das Altertum 12 (1966), 154 — though his description of Narcissus’ support for Paetina as ‘töricht’ and his hypothesis that it was motivated by dislike for L. Vitellius are both unjustified. Meise (p. 130 and n. 26) thinks Paetina’s remarriage would have made no difference to Britannicus’ succession.

¹³⁶ Tac. xiii;Ludus 13. 2;Dorey, op. cit. 153, 155.

¹³⁷ Dio 1x 31.8.

¹³⁸ PIR² 1856; Tac. xii 4;Ludus 8,10.

¹³⁹ She had recently been divorced from Vitellius’ son (Tac. loc. cit.), and was sent into exile after Agrippina’s marriage (ib. 7). Nero recalled her after killing his mother (Tac. xiv 12).

¹⁴⁰ Tac. xii 3,9; Suet. Cl. 27. 2.

¹⁴¹ Tac. xii 8. The Ludus, of course, puts the blame for Silanus’ death on Claudius alone (8, 10, 11; cf. 14); so, more surprisingly, does Suetonius (Cl. 27. 2, 29. 2–3); Dio lx 31. 8 puts the chief blame on Claudius’ freedmen; the Octavia — like Tacitus — on Agrippina (lines 145–9).

¹⁴² Dio, however — or his epitomator — saw no real difference between the two (lx 33. 2).

¹⁴³ For the composition of the last scenes (Tac. xiv 1–14) see Scott, R.D.Latomus 33 (1974), 105–15.Google Scholar who well brings out Tacitus— rhetorical skill and the place of the episode in his construction.

¹⁴⁴ For Agrippina and her sisters under Gaius see Suet. Gai. 15. 3, 34. 1; Dio lix 3. 4, 7. 4, 9. 2;Smallwood, no. 2, line 3;BMC Vol. I. cxlv–cxlvi, 152;Grant,Roman Imperial Money, pp. 141–3; Mommsen, Ges. Schr. viii. 463–6.