Charles and Singleton have explained why Cassius Dio's claim (60.21.2) that elephants were among the equipment prepared for use in Britain during the Claudian invasion of a.d. 43 is probably untrue, if one assumes that by ‘elephant’ he means the animal of that name. It is argued here that the best explanation of this apparent error is that Dio preserves a reference to a type of military machine, probably a siege-tower, rather than to the animal of this name.

For the emperor, quoting Homer was both a danger and an opportunity. Suetonius’ Lives shows that anecdotes of quotation circulated widely to characterise the emperor for good or for ill. Subsequently, these moments could themselves become the subject of allusion. If you quote a line of Homer that was famously quoted by the emperor, are you quoting the poet or Caesar? This phenomenon, whereby a poetic cliché could be reborn as charged reference to a prior use of that tag by a well-known figure, might be termed metaquotation. This ambiguity of reference was exploited throughout Seneca's Apocolocyntosis, and in turn by readers of that text in antiquity.

A longstanding debate among ancient historians and students of Roman frontiers concerns the reality and effective reach of Roman imperial policy. Certainly when new military commitments were involved, the slowness of supply and information meant that major moves had to be planned well in advance. This paper focuses on the provincialisation of Britain and Thrace in a.d. 43 and c. 45. The dating evidence provided by tree rings, coins and milestones suggests that logistic preparation for the invasion of Britain started at least two years before the event. This pattern, of a newly installed Emperor immediately initiating a campaign on the northern frontiers, allowing two years for logistic preparation, is seen no fewer than seven times between Caligula and Caracalla.

Suetonius says that court jesters put slippers on Claudius’ hands while he napped during Caligula's dinner parties so that he would rub his face with them when he awoke. Since touching someone with the sole of a shoe was an insult, the joke is that Claudius insulted himself when he unwittingly rubbed his own face with the slippers.

Narratives of the Claudian invasion of Britain in a.d. 43 have regularly referred to elephants being part of Claudius’ force, with some accounts even suggesting that Claudius paraded the beasts through Colchester (Camulodunum), or even rode on top of one. This study investigates these claims, which derive solely from a somewhat ambiguous reference in Cassius Dio's (60.21.2) description of the invasion. Temporal and logistical constraints, together with military and iconographic considerations, however, make it highly unlikely that the animals, even if they had been assembled on the Channel, made their way across to Britain. Overall, the study shows that Dio's testimony should be treated with extreme caution, and should be accorded only parenthetical importance in treatments of the Claudian invasion.

Roman lead sling bullets (glandes) have been found at Windridge Farm near St Albans in Hertfordshire since the 1970s. A previous study suggested these missiles could have originated from a plough-disturbed hoard of Roman lead objects. More recent discoveries of glandes from other sites throughout Europe have enhanced our understanding of depositional characteristics, morphology and lead sources for Roman sling bullets and this paper offers an alternative explanation for their loss. Their atypical form (for Britain), and the prospect of a continental origin of the lead ore for their manufacture, suggest an early date of deposition. We also argue that the number of bullets and the pattern of their dispersal are indicative of an episode of conflict. After review of attested early military engagements that could have taken place in the vicinity, we propose that the projectiles may relate to one of two events: Claudius's invasion under the auspices of Aulus Plautius in a.d. 43 or Caesar's second incursion of 54 b.c.

Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars usually begin with a family tree. These family trees are often rhetorical, foreshadowing in the ancestors character traits that will be themes of the rest of the Life. This particular rhetorical strategy relies upon an older phenomenon of ‘family identity’—namely, the literary application of similar characteristics to people in the same family—such as the one that tells us that the Claudii are proud and the Domitii Ahenobarbi are ferocious. Gary Farney studied ‘family identity’ as a phenomenon of the Republic. There, it was the association of a family with a certain characteristic, a kind of ‘branding’. It would be perfectly obvious for Suetonius to use the family identities already in use for well-known families, but, as I show here, Suetonius’ selection of ancestors creates different family identities rather than simply using the traditional ones he would have found in other sources. In this study I concentrate on Nero and Tiberius. I focus on these two emperors because they are individuals where there is a known family identity in other sources and they also have the most detailed and elaborate ancestry sections in Suetonius’ Caesars. Family identity seems to be most interesting to Suetonius when it goes against expectations, and that is when Suetonius’ family trees are most elaborate.

This article is a discussion of Plin. Ep. 7.29 and Ep. 8.6, in which he presents his reaction to seeing the grave monument of Marcus Antonius Pallas, the freedman and minister of the Emperor Claudius, beside the Via Tiburtina. The monument records a senatorial vote of thanks to Pallas, and Pliny expresses intense indignation at the Senate's subservience and at the power and influence wielded by a freedman. This article compares Pliny's letters with Tacitus’ account of the senatorial vote of thanks to Pallas at Ann. 12.52–3 and explores the differences between the ways in which the two authors encourage readers to relate to past events. It is noted that the Pallas letters are unusual amongst Pliny's letters for their treatment of material unconnected with the life and career of Pliny and his friends, and argued that in Ep. 7.29 Pliny uses language and attitudes drawn from satire to evoke the past. Ep. 8.6 is read as an idiosyncratic piece of historical enquiry, considering Pliny's use of citation and his anonymization of historical individuals. Both letters are considered in the context of the surrounding letters, and a hypothesis is offered regarding the identity of their addressee Montanus, considering evidence from Tacitus’ Histories and Annals. Discussion of Tac. Ann. 12.52–3 focusses on the use of irony. Pliny's evocation of enargeia (‘vividness’) is compared with that of Tacitus. The article concludes with comparison of the historical accounts offered by Pliny and Tacitus through reflection on Juvenal, Satire 1.

Three aspects of Cassius Dio's account of the Claudian invasion of Britain are discussed. First, the convention, by which ancient historians routinely introduced their detailed narrative of military campaigns with a summary, allows the two first battles in the sequence to be eliminated as separate events. Secondly, the kings, Togodumnus in Cassius Dio and Cogidumnus in Tacitus' Agricola, are taken to be the same individual, who after defeat was reconciled to be Claudius' client-ruler. Thirdly, the argument is restated that the invasion took place through the harbours of West Sussex on a route suggested by the description given by Dio and by the evidence of place-names, known from the Geography of Ptolemy and the Antonine Itinerary.