Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T12:45:26.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CVCVTA AB RATIONIBVS NERONIS AVGVSTI: A JOKE AT NERO'S EXPENSE?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2019

Shushma Malik
Shushma Malik*
Affiliation:
University of Roehampton, London
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On the outside wall and in the vestibule of the ‘House of Publius Paquius Proculus’ in Pompeii (building I.7.1) three graffiti containing the name Cucuta can be found. The first simply reads Cucuta (CIL 4.8065 [outside wall]). The second tells us that Cucuta was an attendant of the Emperor Nero (CIL 4.8066 [outside wall]): Cu(cuta) | Cucuta Ner(onis). From the third we learn that Cucuta was a financial secretary (a rationibus) of Nero (CIL 4.8075 [vestibule]): Cucuta ab ra[t]ioni[b]us | Neronis Augusti. While the meaning and significance of these graffiti may seem apparent—that one of Nero's attendants scratched his name on the wall and vestibule pillar as he waited for the emperor to return from a meeting—the closeness between Cucuta (an otherwise unattested name) and cicuta (hemlock) raises a key question: should we read Cucuta as Cicuta and therefore understand the third graffito in particular as a joke about Nero's rumoured fondness for killing family, friends and his senatorial enemies with poison? In other words, is it Poison, and not a person, that keeps Nero's finances in order? And, if so, can the Cucuta graffiti give us an alternative insight into the plethora of wall inscriptions found outside building I.7.1 greeting Publius Paquius Proculus and recommending him for office?

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 69 , Issue 2 , December 2019 , pp. 783 - 792
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

My sincere thanks to Caillan Davenport, Shelley Hales and Kathryn Tempest for reading drafts of this article. I would also like to thank the CQ editor and the anonymous reviewer for their comments.

References

1 A possible identification of Publius Paquius Proculus as the owner of the house, of his offices and of his status has been suggested by Corte, M. Della, ‘Publius Paquius Proculus’, JRS 16 (1926), 145–54Google Scholar. However, Della Corte's identification relies upon the electoral inscriptions for P. Paquius Proculus outside the house professing support from his neighbours (uicini) to confirm his ownership. On criticisms made of Della Corte's methodology, see Degrassi, A., ‘Sui Fasti consolari dell'Impero’, Athenaeum 33 (1955), 141–9, at 142–3Google Scholar; Castrén, P., Ordo Populusque Pompeianus: Polity and Society in Roman Pompeii (Rome, 1975 [19832]), 31–3Google Scholar; Mouritsen, H., Elections, Magistrates and Municipal Elite. Studies in Pompeian Epigraphy (Rome, 1988), 13–27Google Scholar.

2 On the position of the graffiti in the house, see W. Ehrhardt, Casa di Paquius Proculus (I 7, 1.20) (Häuser in Pompeji 9) (Munich, 1998), 25–6.

3 OLD 2 1.344 s.v. cicūta.

4 See Suet. Ner. 33–6; Tac. Ann. 13.15–16, 14.51, 14.65; Dio Cass. 61(60).7.4–6, 62(61).17.1–2, 62(62).13.3.

5 On the imperial freedmen and slaves in administrative roles, see Weaver, P.R.C., Familia Caesaris: A Social Study of the Emperor's Freedmen and Slaves (Cambridge, 1972), 231–40, 259–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mouritsen, H., The Freedman in the Roman World (Cambridge, 2011), 93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar. As Weaver explains, a label such as a rationibus can refer to the senior administrator (the head of the office) or to those others of junior grade within the office itself.

6 Carcopino, J., ‘Un procurateur méconnu de Néron’, Bulletin de la Société nationale des Antiquaires de France (1960) (Paris, 1962), 150–8Google Scholar. Carcopino's argument is repeated in AE 1962, 133.

7 See MacMullen, R., Enemies of Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire (Cambridge, MA, 1966), 40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Demandt, A., Das Privatleben der römischen Kaiser (Munich, 1996), 58Google Scholar; Miles, R., ‘Communicating culture, identity and power’, in Huskinson, J. (ed.), Experiencing Rome: Culture, Identity and Power in the Roman Empire (London, 2000), 29–62, at 44Google Scholar; Funari, P., ‘Du rire des Grecs au rire des Romains: les inscriptions de Pompéi et le rire’, in Desclos, M.-L. (ed.), Le rire des Grecs: Anthropologie du rire en Grèce ancienne (Grenoble, 2000), 513–23, at 517Google Scholar; Beard, M., Pompeii: Life of a Roman Town (London, 2008), 50–1Google Scholar; Toner, J., Popular Culture in Ancient Rome (Cambridge, 2009), 181Google Scholar; Zadorojnyi, A.V., ‘Transcripts of dissent? Political graffiti and elite ideology under the Principate’, in Baird, J.A. and Taylor, C. (edd.), Ancient Graffiti in Context (London, 2011), 110–33, at 131 n. 27Google Scholar.

8 For example: Franklin, J.L., Pompeis Difficile Est. Studies in the Political Life of Imperial Pompeii (Ann Arbor, 2001), 108CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Varone, A., ‘Iscrizioni e dipinti lungo via dell'Abbondanza: uno spaccato di vita reale nella Pompei del I sec. d.C.’, in Curuni, S.A. and Santopuoli, N. (edd.), Pompei: Via dell'Abbondanza: Ricerche, restauri, e nuove tecnologie (Milan, 2007), 123–41, at 131Google Scholar; Benefiel, R., ‘Rome in Pompeii: wall inscriptions and GIS’, in Feraudi-Gruénais, F. (ed.), Latin on Stone: Epigraphic Research and Electronic Archives (Lanham, 2010), 45–75, at 54–5, 58Google Scholar; Keegan, P., ‘Blogging Rome: graffiti as speech-act and cultural discourse’, in Baird, J.A. and Taylor, C. (edd.), Ancient Graffiti in Context (London, 2011), 165–90, at 179Google Scholar; Benefiel, R., ‘The culture of writing graffiti within domestic spaces at Pompeii’, in Benefiel, R. and Keegan, P. (edd.), Inscriptions in the Private Sphere in the Greco-Roman World (Leiden, 2015), 80–110, at 103Google Scholar; Hartnett, J., The Roman Street: Urban Life and Society in Pompeii, Herculaneum, and Rome (Cambridge, 2017), 290CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Benefiel, R., ‘Urban and suburban attitudes to writing on walls? Pompeii and environs’, in Berti, I., Bolle, K., Opdenhoff, F. and Stroth, F. (edd.), Writing Matters: Presenting and Perceiving Monumental Inscriptions in Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Berlin, 2017), 357Google Scholar.

9 Carcopino (n. 6) mentions only Diehl, E., Pompeianische Wandinschriften und Verwandtes (Berlin, 1930 2)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Corte, M. Della, Case ed abitanti di Pompei (Naples, 1954 2 [19653])Google Scholar.

10 NSA 1911, 430 n. 56.

11 NSA 1929, 439 nn. 60–1.

12 Diehl (n. 9), 65.

13 Diehl (n. 9), 85.

14 M. Della Corte, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, vol. 4 suppl., part 3 (Berlin, 1952), 8075; Della Corte (n. 9), §638.

15 Baehrens, W.A., Sprachlicher Kommentar zur vulgärlateinischen Appendix Probi (Halle, 1922), 32Google Scholar.

16 For more on the relationship between Latin and Romanian, see Fairey, J., ‘“Language wars” and literary vernacularisation among the Serbs and Romanians of Austria-Hungary, 1780–1870’, in Somerset, F. and Watson, N. (edd.), The Vulgar Tongue: Medieval and Postmedieval Vernacularity (University Park, PA, 2003), 177–97Google Scholar.

17 Väänänen, V., Le latin vulgaire des inscriptions pompéiennes (Helsinki, 1937 [19592] [19663]), 40–3Google Scholar. Baehrens (n. 15) and Väänänen (this note) are followed in a very brief note on vowel assimilation, which cites cucuta, by Battisti, C., Avviamento allo studio del latino volgare (Bari, 1949), 114Google Scholar.

18 Diastratic varieties of Latin, as discussed by Peter Kruschwitz, are those which resulted from diverse social levels. A great deal of the evidence for these varieties comes from Pompeii: see Kruschwitz, P., ‘Linguistic variation, language change, and Latin inscriptions’, in Bruun, C. and Edmondson, J. (edd.), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy (Oxford, 2014), 721–44, at 723, 725–6, 729–32Google Scholar. Adams, J.N., Social Variation and the Latin Language (Cambridge, 2013), 3–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar discusses social variation in Latin, although keeping the older term ‘vulgar’ to denote ‘lower’ varieties.

19 Adams, J.N., The Vulgar Latin of the Letters of Claudius Terentianus (P. Mich. VIII, 467–72) (Manchester, 1977), 16Google Scholar.

20 Carcopino (n. 6), 151–2; Hor. Sat. 2.3.69, 2.3.175. Carcopino (n. 6) cites the TLL, Onomasticon, vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1907–13), 433. I add that Kajanto cites one instance in the same Horatian satire (Kajanto, I., The Latin Cognomina [Helsinki, 1965], 8.335Google Scholar). Solin and Salomies refer only to Kajanto: Solin, H. and Salomies, O., Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognominum Latinorum (Zurich, 1988), 314Google Scholar.

21 Carcopino (n. 6), 153. Cf. Weaver (n. 5). According to Ps.-Acro, a scholiast writing in the fifth century, Perellius was given the nickname Cicuta owing to the harshness (asperitas) and bitterness of manner (amaritudo morum) characteristic of a moneylender (faenerator): see Schol. Hor. Sat. 2.3.69, 2.3.74, in O. Keller, Pseudacronis scholia in Horatium vetustiora, vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1902–4), 143.

22 Gal. De Antidotis, lib. 1, in Kühn, C.G., Claudii Galeni opera omnia, vol. 14 (Leipzig, 1827 [repr. Hildesheim, 1965]), 57Google Scholar line 15.

23 Plin. HN 25.172.

24 CIL 4.9024.

25 CIL 4.10082b; Benefiel (n. 8 [2015]), 103.

26 ILS 6532, 6714, 9007; CIL 15.8042, 01–15 (Sagitta is the name of a slave who made bricks that have been discovered in four regions in Italy, Samnium, Rome, Aemilia, and Latium and Campania): Kajanto (n. 20), 342. ILS 6532 and 9007 refer to the son of an Octavius Sagitta mentioned in Tac. Ann. 13.44; Hist. 4.44.

27 CIL 4.8069 (Corint(h)us); cf. 4.2024, 4.4620, 4.5161. CIL 4.8077 (Celer(e)m). CIL 4.8070, 4.8079 (Cimber); cf. 4.10082a for the name Cimber appearing again next to the Sagitta graffito.

28 Castrén (n. 1), 250.

29 Kajanto (n. 20), 248; TLL Onomasticon (n. 20), 2.399–402.

30 Cf. Kajanto (n. 20), 201 (Titus Annius Cimber, pr. 44 b.c.); TLL Onomasticon (n. 20), 2.441.74–442.36, especially 442.6–9; AE 1990, 223(f).

31 Greetings and acclamations: CIL 4.8063, 4.8073, 4.8074 (the vocative Care), 4.8076, 4.8098. Nero and Rome: CIL 4.8064, 4.8067/8, 4.8095. Neroneus/April: CIL 4.8078a, 4.8092; Tac. Ann. 15.74; Suet. Ner. 55.

32 See Franklin (n. 8), 107 for a plan of region 1, block 7 and for the ‘House of Publius Paquius Proculus’ within it.

33 Cf. Laurence, R., ‘Rumour and communication in Roman politics’, G&R 41 (1994), 62–74, at 63Google Scholar. While talking about rumour, as opposed to gossip, Laurence discusses political centres in Republican Rome as points from which information could spread.

34 Suet. Ner. 28.1, 39.2–3, 45.2; Suet. Otho 3.2.

35 Nero did not take kindly to Petronius’ signed deathbed letter, which contained a list of Nero's various debauched sexual activities with both men and women. Upon receiving it, Nero exiled the senator's wife whom he suspected of having told all to Petronius: Tac. Ann. 16.19–20. See also Tac. Ann. 14.48.1 for the dinner-party incident which ended with the exile of Antistius Sosianus.

36 DiFonzo, N. and Bordia, P., Rumour Psychology: Social and Organizational Approaches (Washington, DC, 2007), 14, 19–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gluckman, M., ‘Gossip and scandal’, Current Anthropology 4 (1963), 307–16, at 308CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Paine, R., ‘What is gossip about? An alternative hypothesis’, Man 2 (1967), 278–85, at 283CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wickham, C., ‘Gossip and resistance among the medieval peasantry’, Past and Present 160 (1998), 3–24, at 11–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 See D'Arms, J.H., Romans on the Bay of Naples: A Social and Cultural Study of the Villas and their Owners from 150 b.c. to a.d. 400 (Cambridge, MA, 1970), 73–115Google Scholar. For Romans in Pompeii more generally, see Cooley, A.E. and Cooley, M.G.L., Pompeii and Herculaneum: A Sourcebook (London, 2014 2), 272–6, H90–4Google Scholar. Cf. CIL 4.1711, 4.1994, 4.2145, 4.4311. For imperial visitors during Vespasian's reign, see CIL 10.1018 = ILS 5942.

38 Augustus: CIL 10.931; Livia: CIL 10.799; Gaius Caligula: CIL 10.901; Nero: CIL 10.932; Agrippina the Younger: CIL 10.933.

39 See CIL 4.357 for the involvement of the Poppaei in local Pompeian politics.

40 Plin. HN 22.92, transl. Jones, W.H.S., Natural History. Volume VI: Books 20–23 (Cambridge, MA, 1951), 359Google Scholar.

41 See Benefiel, R., ‘Dialogues of graffiti in the House of the Four Styles at Pompeii (Casa dei Quattro Stili, 1.8.17, 11)’, in Baird, J.A. and Taylor, C. (edd.), Ancient Graffiti in Context (London, 2011), 20–48, at 20Google Scholar; Keegan, P., Graffiti in Antiquity (Abingdon, 2014), 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In order for an inscriber to make his or her mark, a sharp object would be needed to scratch the surface of wall plaster.

42 As we have seen, CIL 4.8075 was written in the House's vestibule. See also Corbier, M., ‘Présentation. L’écrit dans l'espace domestique’, in Corbier, M. and Guilhembet, J.-P. (edd.), L’écriture dans la maison romaine (Paris, 2011), 7–46Google Scholar.

43 Corbier, M., ‘Writing in the private sphere: epilogue’, in Benefiel, R. and Keegan, P. (edd.), Inscriptions in the Private Sphere in the Greco-Roman World (Leiden, 2015), 265–78, at 269Google Scholar. For the alternative view, that the tags are inscribed by the person himself/herself, see Benefiel (n. 8 [2010]), 58–9. Benefiel cites CIL 4.2335, 4.3123, 4.6828, 4.7755, 4.8066, 4.8075 and 4.10082b as graffiti inscribed by imperial attendants. She also cites NSA 1933, 322 n. 358, although this is not a graffito (it is inscribed on a bronze tabula ansata) but more likely a nameplate.

44 Corbier (n. 43), 268–9; Corbier, M., Donner à voir, donner à lire: mémoire et communication dans la Rome ancienne (Paris, 2006), 54–60Google Scholar.

45 CIL 4.7197, 4.7208, 4.7237 mention P. Paquius Proculus as either a candidate or holding office.

46 See n. 1. I have continued to ascribe the house at building I.7.1 to Proculus, but his name here stands in for a type of wealthy elite.

47 Hartnett (n. 8), 288–9.

48 CIL 4.7196–256 are all dipinti painted on Regio I, Insula 7. CIL 4.7819 is another example of the uicini declaring support for Proculus, although this one is located at a nearby shop. Inscribed messages of gratitude and support are common in Pompeii; for example: CIL 4.7343, 4.1094, 4.7342, 4.7346, 4.7667. See also Keegan (n. 8), 179.

49 Hartnett (n. 8), 287 fig. 90; CIL 4.7839. Cf. CIL 4.3130, 4.9083–4.

50 See Franklin (n. 8), 65–195 for a flavour.

51 CIL 4.581, transl. Cooley and Cooley (n. 37), 165. Cf. CIL 4.575, 4.576, 4.604.

52 Keegan, P., Graffiti in Antiquity (Abingdon, 2014), 176CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Chiavia, C., Programmata: manifesti elettorali nella colonia romana di Pompei (Turin, 2002), 225Google Scholar.

53 See the works by MacMullen, Funari, Miles and Toner cited in n. 7.

54 Zadorojnyi (n. 7), 118. Clarke, J.R., Looking at Laughter: Humor, Power, and Transgression in Roman Visual Culture, 100 b.c.–a.d. 250 (Berkeley, 2007), 153–4Google Scholar provides a useful counter example in the Aeneas–as–an–ape painting from Stabiae (National Archaeological Museum of Naples inventory no. 9089). This debate has history: Castrén (n. 1), 92–121 argues that the Augustan Age brought with it serious political conflict between the agents of the emperor and the local Pompeian elite. Mouritsen disagrees, pointing out the ‘profoundly non-narrative’ nature of Castrén's evidence: Mouritsen, H., ‘Mobility and social change in Italian towns during the Principate’, in Parkins, H.M. (ed.), Roman Urbanism: Beyond the Consumer City (London, 1997), 59–82, at 60–70Google Scholar.

55 CIL 4.9099, 4.6893, 4.3407.6. The verse is also recorded by Suetonius: Suet. Dom. 14.2.

56 Benefiel (n. 8 [2010]), 63. Carcopino disagrees, but his evidence is limited. He reads together two pieces of graffiti on the basis that they appear near to one another (both at building IX.3.5), one saying Restitutus Neronis (‘Restitutus [the slave(?)] of Nero’) and the other identifying Restitutus as a cinaedus (adult male passive homosexual, prostitute, ‘dancer’): Carcopino (n. 6), 155; CIL 4.2335, 4.2338. These taken together could be interpreted as a slur about the sort of company that Nero keeps, although the cinaedus can only refer to Restitutus. On the definition of cinaedus, see Richlin, A., The Garden of Priapus: Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor (Oxford, 1992), xxv, 119Google Scholar; Adams, J.N., The Latin Sexual Vocabulary (London, 1982), 194Google Scholar.

57 Benefiel (n. 8 [2010]), 59.

58 Antiochus: CIL 4.3123, located at building VII.2.16, the ‘House of Gavius Rufus’. Restitutus: see n. 56. Sagitta: see n. 26. Poliaeus: CIL 4.7755, located at building II.6.2, an amphitheatre near the property of Decimus Lucretius Satrius Valens.

59 Benefiel (n. 8 [2010]), 59.

60 See Suet. Claud. 28; Dio Cass. 60(61).30.6.