¹ These observations on the text originate from the joint efforts of editing and translating the Octavia with Marianne Alenius for a production of the drama at Boldhusteatret in Copenhagen in October and November 1984 (cf. the bilingual edition, with introduction and notes, cited above). It should be emphasized that the praetexta in what follows will be assumed to postdate the fall of Nero in June A.D. 68; cf. nn. 47ff.

² Tac. Ann. 14.48ff.; on the dynastic implications of the purge, see Griffin, pp. 189ff. (with prev. bibliography).

³ The parallel is ignored by Sutton, D. F., The Dramaturgy of the ‘Octavia’ (Meissenheim, 1983), p. 20Google Scholar; for a detailed discussion, see Schmidt 1435ff.

⁴ Cf. for instance Seneca's admonitions to Nero in De clementia I.20.3: clementem vocabo non in alieno dolore facilem, sed eum qui … intellegit magni animi esse iniurias in summa potentia pati nec quicquam esse gioriosius principe inpune laeso. For a detailed discussion of the loans from i.a. De dementia, see Bruckner, F., Interpretationen zur Pseudo-Seneca Tragödie Octavia (Diss., Nürnberg, 1976), pp. 14ffGoogle Scholar.

⁵ tuos gives deliberate emphasis to the paternal aspects of the Principate: cf. Seneca's, admonition to Nero Obsequere potius civibus placidus tuis (578)Google Scholar; in the otherwise very restrictive apparatus criticus of the OCT edition, Stuart's tuus could therefore safely have been disregarded.

⁶ tua Buecheler: qua A: quam recc.; the emendation has in general been accepted as necessary. The translation is that of Watling, (Penguin Classics, 1966)Google Scholar; cf. Herrmann, (Budé, 1926)Google ScholarQue ta colère me dirige et non mes scrupules! and Thomann, (Artemis, 1961)Google ScholarDein Zorn bestimme uns, nicht unsere Angst; Zwierlein² 475 makes the Prefect equally obsequious, and unprincipled: es leite mich dein Zorn, nicht meine Zaghaftigkeit.

⁷ As suggested by Alenius and Kragelund; the editors owe the idea to discussions with I. Boserup. I now see that Frassinetti, P., RIL 107 (1973), 1115–16 had already suggested the emendation, with very similar argumentsGoogle Scholar.

⁸ Cf. 455; 579; 835; 851; the contrast to Seneca's and the Prefect's consistent use of populus, plebs and cives seems deliberate. For the very similar emphasis on Nero's hatred of and crimes against the populus Romanus in the propaganda of Galba and Vespasian, see pp. 504–5.

⁹ The text is basically that of Zwierlein, but the verse divisions have been altered in 867–8 and 870–1. The notes on the codices and on previous editors are merely intended to highlight the departures from the Oxford text, the apparatus of which should be consulted for further information.

¹⁰ Zwierlein¹ 159 (the article's quamquam is a misprint).

¹¹ Cf. Strzlecki, L., De Senecae trimetro iambico quaestiones selectae (Kraków, 1938), p. 6Google Scholar (one instance in Medea, one in Phaedra, five in Thyestes).

¹² Unfortunately, the study by Seidensticker, B., Die Gesprächsverdichtung in den Tragödien Senecas (Heidelberg, 1969) does not discuss the divergent employment of antilabai in Seneca and in the OctaviaGoogle Scholar; as for the symmetrical structure of the latter drama, note the corresponding speeches (100ff.; 137ff.) at the centre of the first scene as well as the outlay of 174–272; 690–761; 762–819: Kragelund¹ 55ff.; it is odd that Zwierlein in his discussion of the lacunae in 516ff. and 590ff. ignores the possibility that the whole Seneca–Nero scene (377–592) might be similarly structured.

¹³ Zwierlein¹ 159 n. 78 considers reor paratactical, but the traditional reading is of course equally viable: cf. e.g. Livy 10.9.4 causam … haud aliam fuisse reor; note, moreover, that both the two other occurrences of reor in the Octavia (447; 566) have ace. and inf.

¹⁴ Buecheler, F., RhM 27 (1872), 474Google Scholar (= Kleine Schriften ii (Berlin–Leipzig, 1927), p. 31Google Scholar).

¹⁵ Zwierlein¹ 160 n. 81 (quoting a letter).

¹⁶ Octavia praetexta. Curiatio Materno vindication … ed. Ritter, F. (Bonn, 1843)Google Scholar; the suggestion was acknowledged neither by Richter (1867) who favoured Peiper's modified alternative, nor, it seems, by any subsequent editor.

¹⁷ For the reading, and previous discussion, see Zwierlein¹ 158 n. 76, there favouring tam … premit, whereas the OCT text has iam … premet; a case could also be made for premat (Bothe).

¹⁸ Sen, . Clem. 2. 1Google Scholar; using the passivem admoneretur (sc. Nero) Suet. Nero 10.2 records neither the office nor the name of the Emperor's interlocutor.

¹⁹ Hoc certe … Nero non coegit, Tac. Hist. 4.42.3 (Curtius Montanus' indictment of Aquillius Regulus); cf. Pliny, Ep. 3.7.3 on Silius Italicus: Laeserat famam suam sub Nerone (credebatur sponte accusasse).

²⁰ Schmidt 1442 provides a detailed discussion.

²¹ Thus e.g. Ladek, F., Dissertationes philologae Vindobonenses iii (Wien, 1891), p. 32Google Scholar; Helm, R., Sitzb. d. preus. Akad. (Berlin, 1934), pp. 330ff.Google Scholar; Schmidt 1442.

²² Faithful nurses, like Nero's and Domitian's, were social facts as well as literary conventions (Suet. Nero 50; Dom. 17.3); it will have offended no one's historical sensibilities that Octavia's nurse had in fact died prior to the divorce in A.D. 62 (ILS 1838); and even if Octavia, like Nero, had ha d more than one, the persona is unlikely to have been intended as a portrait.

²³ It is unnecessary to quote the numerous precedents, for instance in Sophocles (whose Electra the dramatist appears to have studied: Oct. 18–19; El. 203) or in Seneca (whose Atreus/satelles scene in Thy. 176ff. has frequently been invoked); for parallel confrontations between emperors and prefects, cf. nn.18; 45–6.

²⁴ Keil, , Gramm. Lat. i.489Google Scholar (Diomedes): prima species esl togatarum quae praetextatae dicuntur, in quibus imperalorum negotia agebantur et publica et reges Romani vel duces inducuntur, personarum dignitate et…sublimitate tragoediis similes; for similar definitions, cf. Helm, R., RE 22.2 (1954), 1569ffGoogle Scholar.

²⁵ The playwright's charges against Nero mirror rather closely the official Emperor panegyric: Nero's was not, as poets had asserted, a Golden Age (416ff.), his ideals were not, as initially asserted crebris orationibus (Tac. Ann. 13.11.2; cf. Griffin, pp. 64ff.) clementia, but very much the opposite (437ff.), he was not a true friend of the populus Romanus (nn. 8; 55) an d his much advertised liberalitas (Suet, . Nero 10Google Scholar; cf. Griffin pp. 197ff.) was in fact hixuria (427; 433).

²⁶ The similarities with Seneca's style have most recently induced Abbolito, G. Simonetti, Studi Traglia ii (Roma, 1979), pp. 731ffGoogle Scholar. and Giancotti, F., Orpheus NS 4 (1983), 215ff. to restate the arguments in favour of the drama's authenticityGoogle Scholar; the inference is not cogent (and other arguments, below, p. 504 refute it) but the obvious parallels certainly support the assumption of a date in the period when such familiarity and admiration still appear to have been widespread (cf. below, n. 73).

²⁷ Cf. below p. 504.

²⁸ For the chronology, see Tac. Ann. 14.51ff. with the discussion of Rogers, R. S., Studies in Honor of B. L. Ullmann (Rome, 1964), pp. 217ff.Google Scholar; the divorce clearly postdated the two murders as well as Burrus' death: Octavia inherited Burrus as well as Plautus (Tac. Ann. 14.60.4).

²⁹ This seems the natural interpretation of 782; contra, Ballaira ad loc.: ‘…probabilmente occorre sottintendere a praefecti un cohortium: ad ogni coorte pretoria era preposto un praefectus, che dipendeva dal capo di tutta la guardia imperiale, chiamato praefectus praetorii.’ There is, however, no evidence to support this assertion. Whereas a praefectus cohortis was an equestrian comman d of auxiliaries (Keppie, L., The Making of the Roman Army (London, 1984), p. 177Google Scholar), the Palace was normally guarded by a single cohors commanded by a tribune: Tac. Ann.12.69; Hist. 1.29; Suet, . Nero 9Google Scholar, with the comments of Durry, M., Les cohortes prétoriennes (Paris, 1938), p. 275Google Scholar.

³⁰ Burrus: Dio 62.13.1–2; see further nn. 45–6; Faenius Rufus: Tac, . Ann. 15.50ff.Google Scholar; his attitude is characterized as segnem innocentiam: Ann. 14.51.2. For the identification with Burrus and/or Rufus, cf. the summary in Schmidt 1442, quoting i.a. Enk, P. J., Mnem. 54 (1926), 404Google Scholar (both) and Flinck, E., De Octaviae praetextae auctore diss. (Helsinki, 1919), pp. 26ffGoogle Scholar. (Faenius Rufus).

³¹ The same objection applies to the suggestion of Herrmann, L., Octavie. Tragédie preétexte (Paris, 1924), pp. 62ffGoogle Scholar. and 149ff. that the dram a features two Prefects, first (439) Tigellinus, then (846) Faenius Rufus. Ho w was the reader meant to know who was who? Or are we to believe that the possibility of an audience confusing one with the other did no t bother the author?

³² Murder of Plautus and Sulla: Tac, . Ann. 14.57Google Scholar (with reported discourse); torture scene: ibid. 60.3; Dio 62.13.4 reports her name.

³³ Most recently, PIR ² 0 91 has likewise opted for Tigellinus as the Prefect in vv. 438ff. (‘patet’); unfortunately, the article neither quotes nor comments upon vv. 846ff.

³⁴ Whatever Tigellinus' precise role, he was viewed as Nero's desertor ac proditor, Tac, . Hist. 1.72.Google Scholar; for the defection of the guard, see Griffin, p. 182; the purges after Nero's fall were anarchic (Plut, . Galba 8.5Google Scholar) and individual cases were strongly determined by the power and connections of the accused (Tac, . Hist. 2.10Google Scholar); after Galba's arrival we mainly hear of freedmen being punished, but note the execution, en route, of the consular Petronius Turpilianus (Tac, . Hist. 1.6Google Scholar; Plut, . Galba 15.2Google Scholar) and the attacks on Eprius Marcellus (Tac, . Hist. 4.6Google Scholar).

³⁵ Riots: Plut, . Galba 17.4Google Scholar; innocent men: cf. Suet, . Galba 15.2Google Scholar on poenas innocenlium impunitates noxiorum; τὸν διδάσκαλον καὶ παιδαγωγὸν τῆς τυρννίδος; Plut, . Galba 17.2Google Scholar; Tigellinus' clementia: Tac. Hist. 1.72.2. The edict: Suet. I.e.; Plut, . Galba 17.4Google Scholar; in view of this outcry it does not stand to reason that posthumous attempts by Greek historians to whitewash their benefactor Nero should somehow lie at the root of the uniformly hostile tradition concerning Tigellinus: Roper, T. K., Historia 28 (1979), 356 (following E. Cizek)Google Scholar.

³⁶ Juv. 1. 155–8 with the comments of Courtney; I find the attempt by Baldwin, B., Athenaeum NS 45 (1967), 308Google Scholar to detect a pun on Tigillus = Jupiter, rather than a reference to the Prefect, unconvincing: the necessity for the Satirist to employ historical examples is after all the whole point of the passage.

³⁷ Barnes 217; accepted by Kragelund¹ 88 n. 261 and Sullivan, J. P., Literature and Politics in the Age of Nero (London/New York, 1985), p. 72Google Scholar.

³⁸ An argument in the same category is the observation by Barnes 216 and the present writer that the playwright's reticence about Otho, the lover (or husband) of Poppaea might have a similar cause: Otho only ‘allowed himself – or found it expedient – to acknowledge his connection with Nero and Poppaea’ after Galba's fall (Kragelund¹ 61). While accepting that a date rather early in the Flavian reign is plausible, Zwierlein² 445 dismisses this argument but does not comment on the question of the Prefect's identity.

³⁹ Plin. Ep. 5.8.12; cf. Hor. Carm. 2.1.6 (Pollio's history) and Suet, . Claud. 41.2Google Scholar (Livia and Antonia directing the boy to safer subjects than the civil wars).

⁴⁰ Cf. Tac, . Dial. 3.2Google Scholar: a friend suggesting the author of a politically controversial praetexta to remove si quapravae interpretation materiam dederunt; ibid. 10.8 on the risks of polentiorum aures offendere.

⁴¹ While the sources, with Tacitus as the notable exception, agree on charging Nero as an incendiarius, the dramatist is alone in suggesting that the motive was his hatred of the people: Kragelund¹, 80 n. 162 (with further references).

⁴² Tac. Ann. 15.40.2 plusque infamiae id incendium habuit quia praediis Tigellini Aemilianis proruperat videbaturque Nero condendae urbis novae … gloriam quaerere.

⁴³ Cf. Ov. Tr. 3.4b.63ff.: vos … amici/ dicere quos cupio nomine quemque suo./ sed timor officium cautus compescit, et ipsos/ in nostro poni carmine nolle puto./ ante volebatis …/ quod, quoniam est anceps, intra mea pectora quemque/ alloquar, et nulli causa timoris ero. The dramatist may well have reasoned similarly.

⁴⁴ On the Guard and its Prefects, see M. Durry, op. cit. (n. 29); for the Trajanic and Hadrianic period, Syme, R., JRS 70 (1980), 64ffGoogle Scholar. = RP iii (Oxford, 1984), pp. 1276ffGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁵ Cf. Phil, . Leg. ad Gaium 41fGoogle Scholar. (Macro trying to restrain Gaius); similarly, Tac. Ann. 13.20.3 (Burrus dissuading the execution of Agrippina): Nero … non prius differri potuit quam Burrus necem eius [sc. Agrippinae] promitteret, si facinoris coargueretur: sed cuicumque, nedum parenti defensionem tribuendam; nec accusatores adesse, sed vocem unius ex inimica domo adferri …

⁴⁶ The classic instance is the divergent verdicts on Seianus: that of Suetonius (Tib. 55;61: the initiative coming from Tiberius, not Seianus) is very different from Tacitus'; similarly, Tac. Ann. 6.45.3; 50.5 ascribes crimes to Macro which Suet, . Gaius 12.2 ascribes to GaiusGoogle Scholar; Macro and Burrus had allegedly mitigated or opposed the stern commands of their masters (Joseph, . AI 18.203Google Scholar; Tac, . Ann. 13.2Google Scholar); whether Nero had informed the latter of his plans for murdering Agrippina was a debated issue (Tac. Ann. 14.7.2); by contrast, some of Tigellinus' crimes had allegedly been perpetrated without Nero's knowing: Hist. 1.72.

⁴⁷ Herington, C. J., CQ 11 (1961), 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bruckner, F., op. cit. (n. 4), 7–8 (with prev. lit.)Google Scholar; note, however, that the tradition of Seneca's authorship still has its advocates: n. 26.

⁴⁸ Kragelund¹ 30ff. The inferences from the dream's ambiguous conclusion have been questioned by Griffin, M. T., CR 33 (1983), 322Google Scholar: according to that scholar only Crispinus' (and not Nero's) death is alluded to. Yet, in view of the confusion and controversy among editors (since Ascensius, 1514), commentators (since Treveth, 1315–16) and translators (since Dolce, 1560) it solves nothing simply to deny that these crucial lines carry mor e than one meaning. The very fact that another recent exponent of a one-dimensional reading, Royo, M., REL 61 (1983), 200Google Scholar opted for the alternative (Nero, not Crispinus) seems indirectly to undermine either of these extreme positions.

⁴⁹ The playwright's anti-Neronian attitude has frequently been considered a possible indication of an early date: cf. e.g. Meise, E., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Julisch-Claudischen Dynastie (München, 1969), pp. 125Google Scholar; 134, 171 and 209; Grassl, H., Untersuchungen zum Vierkaiserjahr 68/9 n. Chr. (Diss., Wien, 1973), passimGoogle Scholar; recently Ramage, E. S., Historia 32 (1983), 210 n. 32Google Scholar has on this basis suggested a Flavian or Galban date.

⁵⁰ For the phraseology, see Kragelund¹ 85 n. 221 and Zwierlein² 446 (with bibliography); on the Senecan style, n. 26. The dramatist presupposes considerable familiarity with the ‘Who's Who’ of the period: one is for instance expected to know that the famula (194) is Claudia Acte; the result is occasionally confusion: thus Fitzler, K., RE 10.1 (1917), 908Google Scholar; 938–9 mistook Iulia (944), the daughter of Drusus for a daughter of Germanicus; note also the, for the uninitiated, bewildering tendency to defer the introduction of proper names: Britannice (169); Nero (249); Seneca (589) and Poppaea (?590; 596).

⁵¹ For the evidence, see Kragelund¹ 82 n. 196; Garzetti, A., Melanges Piganiol ii (Paris, 1966), pp. 781–2Google Scholar; the Flavian denigration emphasized their admiration for Nero: Ferrill, A., CJ 60 (1964–1965), 267ffGoogle Scholar. The assumption that the Octavia dates to the reign of Otho (Ciaffi, V., Riv. Fil. 65 (1937), 264Google Scholar and Cizek, E., L'époque de Néron et ses controverses idéologiques (Leiden, 1972), pp. 7–8Google Scholar) is therefore highly unlikely to be true.

⁵² Ann. 14.60.5.

⁵³ For references, cf. Kragelund¹ 38ff.

⁵⁴ For a detailed discussion of this coinage, see Martin, P.-H., Die anonymen Münzen des Jahres 68 n. Chr. (Mainz, 1974)Google Scholar. Martin has with powerful arguments challenged Mattingly's division of the anonymous coinage in five distinct groups (cf. Wallace-Hadrill, A., NC 1981, 33Google Scholar; Hewitt, K. V., NC 1983, 64Google Scholar), but in RIC ² (London, 1984)Google Scholar Mattingly's division is upheld; likewise, Sutherland, C. H. V., NC 1984, 29ff.Google Scholar, but the evidence adduced in its favour seems tenuous.

⁵⁵ Initially, Galba had termed himself legatus Senatus ac populi Romani (Suet, . Galba 10Google Scholar); the revolt was later described as bello qu<od> imp. G<a>alba pro <re p(ublica)> gessit (IRT 537); a revision of temple treasure was undertaken, allegedly ne cuius alterius sacrilegium res publica quam Neronis sensisset (Tac, . Agr. 6.5Google Scholar); likewise, the adoption was for the benefit of populus Romanus and res publica (Tac, . Hist. 1.16Google Scholar; 13.2; cf. Plut, . Galba 21Google Scholar) and Galb a died willingly si ita <e>re publica videretur: Tac. Hist. 1.41.2 (Plut, . Galba 27 has τῷ δήμῳ ῬωμαίωνGoogle Scholar). The coinage displays a similar emphasis on such highminded slogans as SPQR and, above all, the populus Romanus: Kragelund¹ 41ff. (with bibliography).

⁵⁶ Along with the coin symbols and legends (Kragelund¹ 43; 46), the literary evidence testifies that Galba's revolt was advertised and celebrated as a universal manumission: Suet, . Galba 10Google Scholar; Plut, . Galba 5Google Scholar; 6.4; Suet, . Nero 57Google Scholar; note, moreover, the edict professing abhorrence from tyranny (n. 35) and the dedication of a signum Libertatis restitutae (ILS 238) on the 15th October A.D. 68 (i.e. during the ludi Iovi Liberatori: Nock, A. D., Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (Oxford, 1972), p. 774Google Scholar).

⁵⁷ On the republican colouring of these slogans, see Wallace-Hadrill, A., art. cit. (n. 54), 37–8Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ On the relative differences between the emphasis on populus and libertas in the coinage of Galba-Vespasian vis-à-vis Otho-Vitellius, see Kragelund¹ 45ff.

⁵⁹ On the Flavians and Galba, see Gage, J., REA 54 (1952), 290ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on their denigration of Nero, , Ramage, E. S., art. cit. (n. 49), 209ffGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁰ To the Flavian examples discussed in Kragelund¹ 44ff. should be added the Cypriot inscription from A.D. 70–72, published by Roesch, P., BCH 95 (1971), 573ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. Reynolds, J., JRS 66 (1976), 181Google Scholar has tentatively suggested that its curious variation of the pater patriae title, πατέρα δήμου Ῥώμης ἡγεμονίδος <ἀ>νικήτου was influenced by ‘Republican terminology surviving in a senatorial province’; more plausibly, it is a further instance of the shortlived but ostentatious trend discussed above (I am grateful to Joyce Reynolds for an inspiring discussion of this point).

⁶¹ Along with the Flavian invocations of the populus vanished those of Libertas: ‘Vom Jahre 72 ab ist der Göttin(sc. Libertatis) Nam e und Bild wieder von den Miinzen verschwunden, die flavische Monarchic hatte ihre Mach t begründet, bedurfte der lockenden Fiktion nicht mehr. Erst nach 24 jähriger Pause verkündet die LIBERTAS PUBLICA des Nerva nach Domitians Ermordung wieder den Beginn einer neuen Zeit’, Strack, P. L., Untersuchungen zur römischen Reichsprägung des zweiten Jahrhunderts i (Stuttgart, 1931), p. 178Google Scholar; predictably, Nerva's coinage and self-representation likewise made much of the populus.

⁶² Contra, Griffin, , 260 n. 2Google Scholar, who sees Vespasian's favourable attitude towards the divine Claudius as an argument in favour of a Flavian rather than Galban date. Yet, nothing indicates that Galba was found wanting in that particular respect. Note, on the contrary, AFA Henzen, xc: the Arval Brethren and Galba sacrificing to Augustus, Livia and, as it has plausibly been conjectured, d<ivo Claudio>, on the third of January A.D. 69.

⁶³ In determining the drama's date the allusion (if such it is) has of course no independent value: seen in hindsight its implications would be clear. There was much play on the ambiguity of the name: Kragelund¹ 81 nn. 176–80.

⁶⁴ Ciaffi, V., art. cit. (n. 51), 257Google Scholar detected a reference to the Civil Wars in the drama's final verse civis gaudet Roma cruore (982); likewise, but with greater caution, Barnes 217. If indeed referring to the wars, the allusion would surely be strangely isolated. Attentive reading points in another direction. The epigram sums up a major theme of the drama: cives relegated (242), cives treated as hostes (443–4; 491–5), cives scorned, oppressed, terrorized and murdered (578–9; 856, 982) – these, and not the ensuing wars, are presented as the essential evils of Nero's tyranny.

⁶⁵ Given the drama's teleological bent, the objection that the subject did not lend itself easily to such allusions does not hold water: Silius Italicus felt no difficulty (Punka 3.571ff.).

⁶⁶ Note for instance the celebrations of Vespasian as the true conqueror of Britain in Joseph. BJ 3.4 and Val, . Flac, . Arg. 1.7f.Google Scholar; similarly Sil, . Pun. 3.597–8Google Scholar. Octavia an d her nurse would of course insist on the glorious role of Claudius (Octavia 26ff.; 39ff.), but had he wanted, the dramatist could easily have introduced such flattering references elsewhere.

⁶⁷ Thus e.g. Nordmeyer, G., Jahrb. f. kl. Phil., Suppl. 19 (1893), 312Google Scholar, A. Gercke, ibid.Suppl. 22 (1896), 199 and Helm, R., op. cit. (n. 21), 329Google Scholar. Some, like Nordmeyer, , op. cit. 275ff.Google Scholar, Gercke, , op. cit., 195ffGoogle Scholar. and Ussani, V., Riv. Fil. 33 (1905), 449ffGoogle Scholar. claimed to detect traces of either Cluvius Rufus, Fabius Rusticus or Pliny. Like Ladek, F., op. cit. (n. 21), 48Google Scholar and Herrmann, L., op. cit. (n. 31), 931Google Scholar doubt that this approach is methodologically sound, given the extreme fragmentation of the evidence and amount of literature lost. Others have claimed that the Ignotus depended upon Tacitus (in spite of the objections of Cima, A., Riv. Fil. 34 (1906), 529fGoogle Scholar. the notion has rightly been criticized by Ladek, , Z.f.d. Öst. Gym. (1905), 673ff.Google Scholar), or vice versa Tacitus upon the Ignotus (most recently, Whitman, L. Y. (ed.), The Octavia (Bern, 1978) ad 924ff.Google Scholar); Zwierlein², p. 446 follows Helm, R., op. cit. (n. 21), 339 in postulating a common sourceGoogle Scholar. Neither of these conclusions seems cogent. Would any of these authors for instance need a ‘source’ to hit upon topoi like ‘wedding = funeral’ or exempla like the ‘fate of one princess = the fate of another’? In any case these hypotheses seriously underestimate the influence of oral and written traditions concerning the lives and exitus of Nero's victims. Marx, F. A., Philologus 92 (1937), 83ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. argued convincingly that Tacitus betrays acquaintance with such traditions – and there is of course no basis for determining the priority of such traditions vis-à-vis the Octavia.

⁶⁸ The locus classicus is Tac, . Ann. 1.1Google Scholar; Marcia's re-edition of Cremutius Cordus' banned histories antedates Seneca's Ad Marciam which seems likely to have come out during the early liberal period of Gaius' reign: Abel, K., ANRW 11.32. 2 (1985), 705Google Scholar; or perhaps around 39: Griffin, M. T., Seneca (Oxford, 1976), p. 397Google Scholar. The Apocolocyntosis is commonly dated to within a few months of Claudius' death in A.D. 54: P. T. Eden's edition (Oxford, 1984), p. 5; the first of Helvidius Priscus' renowned attacks on Eprius Marcellus dates to the reign of Galba: Tac, . Hist. 4.6Google Scholar; Martial's rehabilitation of Paris (11.13) to shortly after Nerva's accession: Weinreich, O., Sitzb. d. heidelberger Akad. 41.1 (1940), 5Google Scholar; Fannia's re-edition of Senecio's biography of her husband and Pliny's De ultione Hehidii Prisci to the same reign (Pliny, Ep. 7.19.6; 9.13) and Tacitus' Agricola is not much later.

⁶⁹ On the links of praise and denigration, cf. Sen, . Apoc. 4Google Scholar and Tac, . Agr. 3.3Google Scholar; Dio's pamphlet on Severus' dreams (probably out within three months of Severus' usurpation: Millar, F., A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford, 1964), p. 29Google Scholar) was surely a parallel case.

⁷⁰ Neque erat adhuc damnati principis exemplum, Tac. Hist. 1.16.2 (Galba, of Nero); on the damnatio see further Mabbott, T. O., CP 36 (1941), 398ffGoogle Scholar. and Macdowall, D. W., NC 1960, 103ff. (countermarks)Google Scholar; Salzmann, D., AA 1984, 295ff. (portrait in coinage)Google Scholar; Jucker, H., JDAI 96 (1981), 236ff.Google Scholar, M. Bergmann & P. Zanker, ibid. 317ff., and Pollini, J., AJA 88 (1984), 547ff. (sculpture)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Charlesworth, M. P., JRS 27 (1937), 54ffGoogle Scholar. and Ramage, E. S., art. cit. (n. 49), 213–14 (inscriptions)Google Scholar.

⁷¹ For the re-emergence of the statues of Nero's victims, see Suet, . Galba 10 (Spain)Google Scholar; Dio 64.3.4c (Rome); in Dalmatia the name of the condemned P. Anteius Rufus was at some point after Nero's fall reinscribed in two dedications: PIR ² A 731 (Groag) and Wilkes, J. J., Dalmatia (London, 1969), p. 444 n. 9Google Scholar; cf. Abramic, M., Strena Buliciana (Zagrep, Split, 1924), p. 222 with clear photo of rasuraGoogle Scholar. Anteius' name would have been effaced after his condemnation in A.D. 66. Given the dedication from Split to the emperor Galba (ILS 237) as well as the success of Anteius' friends in ensuring the relegation of his delator in January A.D. 70 (Tac. Hist. 4.44.2) the reinscription may well manifest contemporary eagerness to make posthumous restitution to Nero's innocent victims.

⁷² Suet, . Nero 42.2Google Scholar; Plut, . Galba 4 (pro- an d anti-Neronian ballads)Google Scholar; Suet, . Nero 45.2 (anonymous invective, attached to statues and scribbled on columns)Google Scholar; ibid. 41 (Vindex's abusive edicts); Suet, . Galba 10.3 (Galba's edicts to the provinces)Google Scholar; OGIS ii.669 (the edict of the Prefect of Egypt announcing the accession of Galba and the abolition of the abuses of the past); on the attacks in the Senate and elsewhere on the delatores, cf. Suet, . Nero 44.2 (prior to his fall)Google Scholar; Plut, . Galba 8.5Google Scholar; Tac, . Hist. 2.10Google Scholar; 4.6.2 (under Galba); 2.53 (under Vitellius); 4.43ff. (under Vespasian).

⁷³ To commemorate the dead by epigraphic or literary means was considered a manifestation of pietas: Gonzalez, J. (ed.), Tabula Siarensis, ZPE 55 (1984), 76 (Drusus' for Germanicus)Google Scholar; Sen. Vita patris fr. 98 Haase; Tac, . Agr. 3.3Google Scholar; the dramatist's admiring and ‘lifelike’ portrait of Seneca may well have been similarly motivated. On Seneca's posthumous fame, see Trillitzsch, W., Seneca im literarischen Urteil der Antike (Amsterdam, 1971)Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ Galba 17.4.

⁷⁵ For the interpretation of Tac, . Dial. 11.2Google Scholar, see Kragelund² (with detailed bibliography). The widely held assumption that the attack on Vatinius dates to the last years of Nero (now also Duret, L., ANRW II.32.5 [1986], 3208–9Google Scholar and Devreker, J., Hommages à J. Veremans, Coll. Latomus 193 [1986], 102–3Google Scholar) is implausible in view of the dangers involved in attacking a favourite of Nero's, and to judge from Tac. Hist. 1.37.5 his fall and death are clearly datable to the reign of Galba. The interpretation of the work in question as a speech (advocated above all by Stroux, J., Philologus 86 [1931], 346Google Scholar) is for contextual and linguistic reasons implausible: to judge from parallels, the cum quidem sentence is an amplification of Maternus' reference to recitals of his dramatic works: Kragelund² 199.

⁷⁶ For the scope and sentiment of the republican praetextae, see Helm, R., op. cit. (n. 24), 1569ff.Google Scholar; the scholia to Cicero's pro Sestio 58.123 provide a glimpse of a highly partisan response to a performance of Accius' Brutus.

⁷⁷ On Maternus' offence, cf. n. 40; as for his fate, the prosopographical evidence (PIR ² M 361) is ambiguous, but the text and literary convention suggest that his independent and defiant spirit somehow proved his undoing: Kragelund² 201 n. 33.

⁷⁸ Galba's public veneration for the images of those exiled or condemned by Nero (n. 71) would, to judge from Ov. Tr. 1.7.11, be viewed as an instance of pietas; the coin featuring Pietas sacrificing at an altar with Aeneas and Anchises (RIC ² I (Galba), no. 483) probably celebrates the new emperor's pietas (cf. Suet, . Tib. 70.3Google Scholar; Claud. 11.2; Nero 9) towards his predecessors (n. 62) as well as towards the members of the imperial family murdered by Nero: Dio 64.3.4c.

⁷⁹ On Galba's inconsistency, cf. n. 39. Among those whose survival is known or presumed to have scandalized contemporaries, note Eprius Marcellus (n. 68), Vibius Crispus (promoted to curator aquarum: Syme, R., Historia 31 (1982), 480Google Scholar) and Nero's freedmen Epaphroditus (Kragelund² 198) and Halotus (promoted to procurator: Suet, . Galba 15.2Google Scholar). In spite of their embarrassing past, neither Nerva (Tac, . Ann. 15.72Google Scholar) nor Silius Italicus (n. 24) seems to have suffered any setbacks; years later, the latter would in his Punica 8.463ff. and 10.403ff. extol the virtue of Galba and Piso and their ancestors: Béranger, J., Melanges Carcopino (Paris, 1966), p. 108Google Scholar.