^{page 11 note 1} For the Republican rule of separation, see Cic. Att. vii. 2. 2Google Scholar, Fam. xiv. 5Google Scholar; Sen. Controv. ix. 25. 1Google Scholar; Tac. Ann. iii. 33. 2.Google Scholar For statues, see Pliny, NH xxxiv. 14.Google Scholar For an example, see Kern, O., Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander (Berlin, 1900)Google Scholar, no. 145. For Metella and Cornelia, see Plut. Sulla 6. 12Google Scholar; Sen. De Matr. 63Google Scholar; Plut. Pomp. 74.Google ScholarPflaum, H. G., Les Procurateurs équestres sous le Haut-Empire romain (Paris, 1950), 297Google Scholar, is mistaken in claiming Octavia as the first wife to accompany her husband to the East.

^{page 11 note 2} See, e.g., Val. Max. vi. 7. 3Google Scholar; App. Bell. Civ. iv. 39–40, 48Google Scholar; Cass. Dio liv. 7. 1.Google Scholar For the services of wives who stayed home, see Cic. Fam. xiv. 7. 2Google Scholar, with Förtsch, B., Die politische Rolle dor Frau in der römischen Republik (Stuttgart, 1935), 79 ff.Google Scholar See also the loyalty praised in the so-called ‘Laudatio Turiae’, in Riccobono, S., Fontes Iuris Romani Antejustiniani, vol. iii (Florence, 1940–1943)Google Scholar, no. 69, with Durry, M., Éloge funèbre d'une matrons romaine (Paris, 1950).Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 3} See, e.g., Plut. Ant. 33. 3Google Scholar; App. Bell. Civ. v. 76.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 4} See Tac. Ann. iii. 34. 6Google Scholar; Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), 476 ff.Google Scholar; IG xii. 2. 258.Google Scholar For imperial child-bearing abroad, see Suet. Calig. 8Google Scholar, Claud. 2. 1Google Scholar; Tac. Ann. i. 40. 3Google Scholar, etc. Cf. Balsdon, J. P. V. D., Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome (London, 1969), 238.Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 1} See Magie, loc. cit.

^{page 12 note 2} See Balsdon, , op. cit. 237Google Scholar; also his Roman Women, their History and Habits (London, 1962), 59 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 3} Suet. Aug. 24. 1Google Scholar, ‘ne legatorum quidem cuiquam, nisi gravate hibernisque demum mensibus, permisit uxorem intervisere.’ Military duties would, of course, be more pressing for imperial than for senatorial governors.

^{page 12 note 4} Cf. Tac. Ann. iii. 34. 6Google Scholar, ‘nam principibus adeunda saepius longinqua imperii.’

^{page 12 note 5} For extension of governors' terms, beginning early in the reign of Tiberius, see Tac. Ann. i. 80Google Scholar, with Marsh, F. B., The Reign of Tiberius (Oxford, 1931), 157 ff.Google Scholar; Charlesworth, M. P., Cambridge Ancient History vol. x (1934), 648 ff.Google Scholar; Syme, R., Tacitus vol. i (Oxford, 1958), 441 ff.Google ScholarPflaum, , op. cit. 302Google Scholar, oddly suggests that it was the presence of their wives which caused governors, once settled en famille, to be unwilling to move sooner to new posts.

^{page 13 note 1} Tac. Ann. iii. 33.Google Scholar The wording of the motion suggests that it referred primarily to the senate's governors rather than to the legati pro praetore appointed by the emperor.

^{page 13 note 2} Donaldson, J., Woman: her Position and Influence in Ancient Greece and Rome, and among the Early Christians (London, 1907), 122.Google Scholar Donaldson does not seem bothered by the cynical argument of Messalinus that women were morally too frail to withstand the temptations of ‘grass-widowhood’ in Rome, or by his declaration that husbands are set as moral watchdogs over wives.

^{page 13 note 3} Friedländer, L., Roman Life and Manners under the Early Empire⁷ vol. i (Eng. trans. London, 1907), 251.Google Scholar He begins a belated corrective at 261 ff., after noting too late that ‘literature prefers dwelling on the frailties and vices of women, as being better copy, than on the inconspicuous virtues’.

^{page 13 note 4} Cl. Herrmann, , Le Rôle judiciaire et politique des femmes sous la République romaine, Coll. Latomus lxvii (Brussels, 1964), 55.Google Scholar This work explains the cults of Bacchus and Cybele as being instruments of the feminist cause (58 ff., 68 ff.), sees cases of poisoning as feminist activism (78 ff., 85), and explains an ex-censor's exile as feminist revenge for his dour views on marriage (94). Not one gleam of humour appears to lighten this fanciful exegesis.

^{page 13 note 5} Op. cit. i. 444, 535; ii. 564.

^{page 14 note 1} Roman Women, 60 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 2} See Ann. iii. 33. 3Google Scholar, ‘praesedisse nuper feminam exercitio cohortium, decursu legionum.’ Cf. Ann. ii. 55. 6Google Scholar, ‘nec Plancina se intra decora feminis tenebat sed exercitio equitum, decursibus cohortium interesse.’ For Caecina's hostility to Piso, see Ann. iii. 18. 2.Google Scholar For Plancina's involvement in Piso's disgrace, see Ann. iii. 15 ff.Google Scholar, with Rogers, R. S., Criminal Trials and Criminal Legislation under Tiberius (Middletown, 1935), 42 ff.Google Scholar Plancina was saved by Livia, 's intervention (Ann. iii. 15. 1).Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 3} See Tac. Agr. 6. 3, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 4} Ann. iii. 34. 6.Google Scholar See Balsdon, , Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome, 238Google Scholar; Koestermann, E., Cornelius Tacitus, Annalen, Band i (Heidelberg, 1963), 483.Google ScholarPflaum, , op. cit. 299 ff.Google Scholar, sees the criticism as extending to Livia.

^{page 14 note 5} Ann. iii. 31. 1.Google ScholarKöniger, H., Gestalt und Welt der Frau bet Tacitus (Erlangen, 1966), 24 ff.Google Scholar, sees the meddlesome Plancina as providing ‘eine Kontrastfigur’ to the entirely constructive participation of Agrippina in the military duties of Germanicus (Ann. i. 69. 1 ff.)Google Scholar. Agrippina does remain artistically subordinated to the depiction of Germanicus as a hero.

^{page 14 note 6} See Ann. iv. 20. 4Google Scholar (A.d. 24). Ulpian, , Digest i, 16. 4. 2Google Scholar, dates what seems to be the same decree to A.d. 20. Rogers, , op. cit. 51, 79Google Scholar, upholds Ulpian's dating and contends that the decree was prompted by Plancina's case. But it seems more probable that Ulpian was misled by the name of Messalinus Cotta, mover of the decree, into dating it by a natural assumption to the latter's consulship in A.d. 20.

^{page 15 note 1} For Sosia Galla, possibly indicted for complicity in extortion as well as maiestas, see Ann. iv. 19. 4 ff.Google Scholar, with Rogers, , op. cit. 75 ff.Google Scholar Plancina was indicted for complicity in maiestas (above, p. 14 n. 2). Juv. Sat. viii. 127 ff.Google Scholar lists an upright wife as being as important for a governor's good reputation as an incorruptible cohors and viator. Pliny, , Ep. x. 120–1Google Scholar, carefully consults Trajan before allowing his wife to use public transportation for personal reasons.

^{page 15 note 2} Ann. iii. 32. 2, 35. 1–2.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 3} For the directive of Tiberius, , see Ann. iii. 32. 1.Google Scholar Cf. Ann. iv. 23. 1Google Scholar, ‘nam priores duces, ubi impetrando triumphalium insigni sufficere res suas crediderant, hostem omittebant; iamque tres laureatae in urbe statuae, et adhuc raptabat Africam Tacfarinas …’ This recalls the bitter irony of the description in Germ. 37. 6Google Scholar of the Germans as ‘triumphati magis quam victi’. For Tacfarinas, see Marsh, , op. cit. 148 ff.Google Scholar; Charlesworth, , op. cit. 643 ff.Google Scholar; Syme, R., in Coleman-Norton, P. R. (ed.), Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in Honor of Allan Chester Johnson (Princeton, 1951), 113 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 1} For the charge that Verres seduced provincials' wives, see Cic. Verr. ii. 2. 14. 36.Google Scholar For Verres' dalliance with Tertia, see Verr. ii. 3. 34. 78, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 2} See Sen. Contr. ix. 25.Google Scholar Cf. Cic. De Sen. 12. 42.Google ScholarLivy, xxxix. 42. 8 ff.Google Scholar and Plut, . Flamin. 18Google Scholar present a variant version featuring a male lover.

^{page 16 note 3} For Caecina's military record, see Ann. i. 31. 2Google Scholar, iii. 33. 1; Vell. Pat. ii. 112.4Google Scholar; Cass. Dio lv. 29–32Google Scholar; PIR ² ii, no. 106.Google Scholar Cf. Marsh, , op. cit. 53 ff.Google Scholar, 70 ff. For Tacitus' own approval of old-fashioned discipline in Africa, see Ann. iii. 21. 1.Google Scholar For his disapproval of the presence of wives in the camp, see Ann. xv. 10. 3–4.Google Scholar Cf. Ann. xii. 37. 4Google Scholar (of Agrippina the Younger), ‘novum sane et moribus veterum insolitum, feminam signis Romania praesidere.’

^{page 17 note 1} Ann. iii. 33. 4, ‘… nunc vinclis exsolutis domos fora, iam et exercitus regerent.’Google ScholarPflaum, , op. cit. 298Google Scholar, implausibly assumes that Caecina's motion raised a question quite unrelated to the debate over the African command.

^{page 17 note 2} Ann. iii. 34. 1Google Scholar, ‘plures obturbabant … neque Caecinam dignum tantae rei censorem.’

^{page 17 note 3} Walker, B., The Annals of Tacitus ² (Manchester, 1960). 260.Google Scholar describes this speech as ‘a typical example of argumentative rhetoric, full of rhetorical questions’.

^{page 17 note 4} Ann. iii. 34. 2Google Scholar, ‘multa duritiae veterum in melius et laetius mutata; neque enim, ut olim, obsideri urbem bellis aut provincias hostilis esse.’

^{page 17 note 5} Ann. iii. 34. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 18 note 1} Cf. Ann. ii. 26. 4Google Scholar, iii. 21. 3. For a more positive view of the military caution of Tiberius, see Vell. Pat. ii. 113 ff.