TWO WIVES OF : A POLITICAL AND PROSOPOGRAPHICAL STUDY

by ROBERT N. S. PARKER

A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of M.A.

Department of Classics McGill University July 1986

Montr~al

© R. N. S. Parker, 1986 ABSTRACT

In the course of his reign, the Emperor Nero was married to three wives in succession. Since a number of women are known to have been politically active during the late Republic and early Empire, it is possible that Nero's wives also exerted political pressure on him.

Relying primarily on the best source for the Neronian Principate, ' XIII-XVI, this thesis will give an account of the evidence pre­ sented for the lives of the only two wives of Nero with whom Tacitus deals, Claudia and . There follows, in addition, an estimation of Tacitus• judgment of their lives in light of his general view of women. It will be demonstrated that although both women had the necessary means to mount political pressure, only Poppaea took advantage of her position.

ii c

RESUME

Pendant son regne l 'empereur N~ron s'est mari~ successivement a trois

femmes. Avec l'av~nement a d'un certain nombre de femmes politiquement

actives~ au cours de cette ~poque, il est permis de pr~tendre que les ~pauses

de N~ron ont ~t~ dans la position d'exercer sur celui-ci des pressions politi­ ques.

Bas~e principalement sur la plus importante source issue du principat

de N~ron, soit les Annales XIII-XVI de Tacite~ la pr~sente th@se a pour objet

de faire un expos~ sur 1 '~vidence de la vie de Claudia Octavie et celle-la de

Popp~e Sabina~ qui ~taient les seules ~pauses de N~ron, que.Tacite a trait~e dans son oeuvre. De plus, la th@se offre une opinion sur le jugement de Tacite

concernant ces deux ~pouses dans le contexte g~n~ral de son id~e des femmes.

A cette fin, il d~montrera que meme si les deux femmes ont eu les moyens d'ex­

ercer des pressions politiques, ce n'est que Popp~e qui a profit~ de son pou­ voir.

iii c

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Few tasks of this nature are completed without much being owed to many. This thesis is no exception. Thanks must go to Dr. G. Michael Woloch who supervised and guided this work from its inception, and who provided much worth­ while and needed counsel. Without his direction this project would not have been completed. Thanks also to Dr. Michael J. Silverthorne who offered to read this thesis while on sabbatical leave. Much is also owed to my undergraduate teachers and advisors at the University of Victoria; particularly Professor Keith Bradley who first whetted my appetite for Roman History, and who first en­ couraged me that this stage in my career·could be reached.

I would also like to thank those friends and family members who provided both moral and financial support over the past years of study. A special debt of gratitude is due to my wife, Lois, and my children, Joel and Angela, who have patiently endured my labours without complaint, and who have given up countless evenings and weekends of family time because Dad was studying.

iv CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ;; RESUME ...... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

Stell1Tiata 1

I. Introduction 4

I I. Octavia 13 Ill. Poppaea Sabina 36 IV. Tacitus and Octavia and Poppaea 66 V. Conclusion 78

APPENDIX 82

BIBLIOGRAPHY 85

y STEM A. Dirtcl and collakral descendants o/ Auguslus. Anoh&ri&.••• _ ••• (1) C. Oot.aviua •••. T ... A.tia maior, daughter of M. Atius Balbns, and of T d.~B.C• .;8. , Jolia, sister of the dictator Caesar. d. 711, B.C. ,.3. I I I (~)Oot.avia maior. (3) Ootavia minor. Bcrfbonia .••• =r.. . (4) C. Ootaviua ..•• =- ••• Livia Druailla.. b. eir. ~. B.c. 6-4. j (CA.EBA.B A'O'GUBTUS.) See B. t. d. cir. 7·f3. B.C. 11. • b. Sep. 23, ~1,B.C. 63. . See next page. d. Aug. 19, 767, A.D. 14. , K. Vipaaniu Aenppa. • • • =;=• (5) Julia. .. . = ... Ti. Nero. b. 69t, B.C. 63. I b. 7I 5t B.C. 39· (B. 1.) d. U2 7 B.C. U •. d. 767, A.D. 14. See also ( a6). I I I I (6) 0. Oaeaar..•• = .. Livia. (7) L. Caesar .... A.emilia (9) .A.crippbut..• • • =r. .. Germa.nieua ( r o) AeriPP• b. 734, B.C. ao. . (B. 6.) b. 737, B.C. 17. Lepida. b. cir. 740, B.C. I+ I Caesar. Poetumua. d. Feb. 21, 757• A.D. 4· d. Sept. 19. 755, (betrothed.) m. cir. 758, A.D. 5· (B. 5·) h. 742 1 B.C. U. A.D. 2, d. Oct. 18, 786, A.D. 33· d. 767, A D. 14. L. .A.em.illu.a Paullu.a. ••.. ::;: .•..•.•.. (8) .Tulla. I d. 781, A D. :a8.

:-1---.,.-~---- I I I I I I Drt:Wlla. ... (u) Jl. A.emlliu.a Julia.-(13) Nero Caeaar. (14) Drwsu.a-A.em.illa (15) GA.IUS Ca.esonia. (I 6) .A.grip· ( I7) Dru· (18) Julia Lepidu. (B. 8.) b. 759· A.u. 6. Caeaar. Lepida. CAESA.B. ~.794, pin&. ail la, or Livilla. d. 784, A.D. 31. b. cir. 76o, (CA.LIGULA..) A.D. 41. h. Nov. 16. b. 770, b. 771, A.D. 7· b. Aug. 31, 768, A.n. 15. A.D. 17. A.D. 18. X . .Juniu Bilanua. ( u) A.emilia d. 787, A.D. 33· 765, A.D. U. d. 81l, d. 791, d. 794· COS. 771., A.D. 19- Lepii!&. (tfOit 10.) d. Jan. 24, A.D. 59· A.D. 38. A.D .• p. 794, A.D. 41• I I I 1 I . , (19) llll. Bilanu. (:ao) L. Sil&nna. (21) D. Silanu. (:u) Junia (1.3) Junia Lepida. (3.oJ) .Tulia Druailla b. 767, A.D. I.J. d. So:z, A.n. 49· d. 817, A.D. 6.J. Calrina. d. 79-4• A.l>. -JI. d. 80] 1 A D. 54· I (25) L. Silanua. d. 1518, A.D. 65. Stemmata taken from H. Furneaux, The Annals of Tacftus (1896)

0 0 STEM A (conti11urd).

C. MaroeUw. :;= dctavla minor. Jl. A.ntoniu.a, Triumvir. rl. jiJ, R.C. •P ., see above (3)· d. 7 l.J, JI.C. JO. ,...------, (:r6) .11. Karcellw.=J'uli.a. K. Vip•niu.::;:::(:~S)Jl-.roella .....•. ..Iullua b. 7 I r, B c. 4,3. see above (5). Ap-ippa. I' minor. .A.ntoniua. d. 731, B.C. 23. set' abO\'C (5). I (34) Vipaania (?). =rQ. Hateriu... K. V&lerlw =r (27) Jl&1"0ell&.,.. 8ez. Appuleiua. I (35) L. .A.ntOniu.a.1 ~u. Appi&nu.a. I maior. 1 (39) Hateriu.. Aarlppa. I I (31) K. V&leriu.a (3:1) Ol&udia (33) Appuleia I I ...... u... Pulohra. VU'illa. L. D611dlfu.a =r (29) Ant.onl& maior• (30} .A.ntonla • • = . . 11 ero B-.r'batu.. A.beuobu'bu.a. b. i IS, B. C. 3?· minor. Claudius Cos. B.C. B.C. see (38~) 783, 16. b. 718, 36. Dru.au.a. d. ns. A.o. :zs. d. 790, A.O. 37· (H. J). '------~-----' N See B. I I I (36) On. Domlt.iua::y:AcrippiD& •.•• = ... Criapua .•• = ... (37) Domitia. (38) Domitl& :::;=M. Va.leriu• A.h.eaobarbu.. l see above Puaienua. d. 8u, A o. 59- Lepida. 1 Meaaalla cos. 785, A.D. Jl. (16), . Barbatue. I see above (31 ). Oct.&Yi&. = ( 40) L. Domitiu AhenoblU'bua :;= Poppa.ea = 8tatilia \;I) Va.leria = Ti. ClaudiWI (B. 14.) lNEB.O CLAUDIUS CA:ES.t.B.] I l!h.bina. Jle....alina. Meu&lina. Cae•ar. b. cir. 2-4. (IJ. b. Dec. 15,790, A.l>. 37· I d 81~, 7ij, A.n. 7.) d. Jnne Q, lh t, A. n. 61!. A.D. 6 ~· d. So 1, A.U. ----.;8. '_.,~Claudia Au.cwta. See B. b. & d. 816, .\ n. 63.

g 0 STI-~~1H. F'ami{;: c:f lht Claudt"an C£wars.

(1) Ti. Claudius Nero, 1 Livia Drusilla. descended from a son I b. Jan. 30, 696 or 6c;7, ofApp.Cl:wdiusCaecus. H.C.:. s8 or Si'· m. to

d.7:11 1 B.C.33. Augu:.tus, 7H1, u.c. 38. d. 78::, A.IJ. 29.

I I Vipaania::;:: (:~)Ti. Claudius Nero.=Julia. tA.s.) Antonia ~ \3) N ero Claudiua Drusus, .. I [TI. CAESA..B ..) minor. afterwards Germa.nicus. d. 773. I b. NO\·. 16, 712, ll.C. ·P· (A. 30.) b. 716, l:l.C. 38. d. Sept. 745, A.D. 20. . d. March 16, jiJO, ll.C. 9· . I A.D. 37· I I (4) Druaua Ca.e8a.r. TLivia. (5) Germanicus=Agrippina. (6) Livia b. Oct. S· cir. 741, B.C. see (6). Caeaa.r. (A. 9·) or LiTilla. 13.d. 7i6,A.D. 2J. b. May 2-f.. 739, j d. 784, A.D. 31. B.C. 15. ; d. 772, A IJ. -..---­19. I w See A. I I Plautia -,- Aelia 1 Va.leri& :::;=(7) Ti. Claudius Druaua==Agrippina. Urgul.W.U.. 1 Pa.etina.j:Meaa&lina.j Nero Germanicus. (A. 16.) (A ...p.) (TI. CLAUDIUS CAESAR.] I I b. Aug. l, 7 Ht B.C. 10. . Ne:ro=(8) .Tulia.:::;=C. Bubelliua (9) Ti. Caeaa.r (xo) Germanioua d. Oct. 1 3, 8o7, A. D. 54· Caeur. d. 796, I Blandwa. (Gemdlus). Ca.eaar. \A. 13.) A.I.>. 43· I b. 7il. A.D. 19. b. 'i72, A.U. 19. d. 790, A D. 37. d. 776, A.ll. 23.

I --, I (u) Druaus. (ll) Claudia. ( 13) Claudia ( q) Oetavia.. (15) Ti. Claudius (16) C. Bubelliua b. in or before d. an infant. Antonia.. d. 815. A.D. 62. Britannicws. Plautua. i73t A.D. :10. d. 819, b. Feb. 13, 794 or ·d. 81,5, A.D. 62. d. in childhood. A U. 66. 79Y:,, A.D. 41 or 4l. d. Sol\, A n. 55·

·g 0 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

In 1969, B. H. Warmington lamented:

The fact that only one serious treatment of Nero's principate has appeared in this country in a generation seems to show that British scholars have been led by the undoubtedly trivial na­ ture of some of the source material to the conclus1on that it was an episode unworthy of the dignity of history.l

It is difficult to disagree with Warmington's assessment of the source material. The best source for the·Neronian Principate is unquestionably Tacitus' Annals, but unfortunately it survives only in part; '.account was never in­ tended to be complete; and the third century Greek historian sur­ vives only in Byzantine excerpts. Still the last of the Julio-Claudian emper­ ors--a man who murdered his mother, was thought to have set fire to Rome, who is still often characterized as the first persecutor of the Christians, and who was dead at age thirty-one after a reign of fourteen years--should be thought to exercise a certain amount of fascination.

The work to which Warmington refers is B. W. Henderson's The Life and Principate of the Emperor Nero2 which appeared in 1903. Like the works on Nero which have followed it Henderson's book focused on the reason for the col-

lapse of Nero!s Principate whtclt ~as Mfriam T. Griffin has noted, .wa-s the most important event of Nero's reign. 3 Henderson_believed that Nero'.s overthrow·. was the result of a "nationa1ist11 uprising in the provinces, and while his book

0 4 5

still remains a valuable source of information iLis·quite~dated~ particularly in methodo 1ogy.

Warmington's book was essentially biographical but he felt that Nero

alienated the ruling classes by his frivolitry and incompetence. Another bio­ graphical book on Nero was published at almost the same time by Michael Grant4

who opted for the view tha"'::. Lie up;;er cl asses. were· Ured of Nero ~s. paranoid cruelty. The roost recent boot on Hero is by Miriam T. Griffin5 and is in many way the most scholarly of the three. Her approach has not been merely to seek a new biographical angle from which to justify her book, rather she has explored

! the pe~sona.. 1 i ty of Nero to ex.J 1ai n 'Why the Ju. 1i o-Cl audi an regime came to an

abrupt end ~fth ~~~o's s~~ci~s in A.D. 68. Her conclusion is that the person- ality of the Princeps could nnt rr:esh successfuly with the burdens of the Aug- ustan form of government.

While there has been a minor resurgence of interest in Nero and his Principate which has included the publication of two commentaries on Suetonius'

Vita Neronis~6 there has been a much more vigorous publication of books and articles on women in classical antiquity; the basic modern work being Sarah B. Pomeroy's Goddesses, Whores, Yives, and Slaves.7 Pomeroy's book provided the / first analytical examination of the role of upper-class women in Greek and Roman

society and provided an inpet~s for further studies that went beyond just upper­ class women (so far as this is possible) to build a more complete profile of the Roman WG.';J'an. There has r-ot teen to this date any comprehensive study that has combined the two resurgent fields of study in Nero's Principate and the

\'/Omen involved in it. 0 While the focus of st...:iies on liero have been on the reason for the cor:- . 6 lapse of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, it is doubtful that Nero's reign will c ever be vindicated; all the sources are hostile toward him and we possess no letters, diaries, or other literary material of a private sort, such as exists for Cicero, to give a more balanced view. It was not that laudatory accounts did not exist during Nero's lifetime, but these were suppressed under the Neronian damnatio during the Flavian period.B We should not, however, expect these suppressed accounts, if they were still in existence, to have changed much the prevailing view of Nero as a cruel tyrant. While the hostility exhib­ ited toward him by Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio may in large part be due to the use of common sources, it may also in large measure be due to the fact that the historians were accurately reflecting the character of Nero's reign.

When Nero was elevated to the Principate in A.D. 54, he seemed to get off to a relatively creditable start. His accession speech promised to cor­ rect the abuses of the Claudian Principate and.to restore lost authority to the Senate (Tacitus, Ann. XIII.4f.). It was not long, however, before an affair with a freedwoman, Acte, put emnity between Nero and his mother Agrippina minor who at this stage had a keener awareness of the importance of pedigree. Agrippina had spent a considerable amount of time! arranging matters so that Nero could supplant Claudius' own son Britannicus as principal heir; she re­ sented the interference of a lowly freedwoman in her dynastic schemes (Ann. XIII.12}. Shortly after_this, as Nero noticed his mother's threats to shift her support from him to Britannicus, Nero murdered Britannicus to prevent his mother from using Claudius' son against him (Ann. XIII. 16). From this point Agrippina's power over Nero was in eclipse and. to rid himself of her meddling, Nero committed that most horrible of crimes: matricide. With the final re- 7 straint on his behavior removed, Nero embarked on all forms of licentious- c ness, was rumoured to have murdered Afranius Burrus his advisor and Praetorian Prefect, dismissed and eventually executed another counsellor, L. Annaeus Seneca (who had been his boyhood tutor), was rumoured to have burned the city of Rome in order to construct a city named after himself, and squandered the wealth of the state on such frivolities as games, floating,_brothel s, and a mad search for gold based on an unsubstantiated report. In addition to these crimes, to Tacitus' great disgust in particular, he even dared to perform on a public stage and indulge in driving chariots.

After Nero's dispatch of his mother, Seneca and Burrus stood alone as the principal counsellors of the Princeps. Both men had owed their positions to Agrippina's influence (Ann. xrr.a, 42) but neither seemed to have any great love for her.- Ta<:itus records both as giving tacit approval to her murder {Ann. XIV.7), and Dio clearly incriminates Seneca in the.crime {LXI.12.i). With his mother dead Nero seemed no longer to feel any restraints on his life {Ann. XIV.13) and both Burrus and Seneca were removed from office within three years; the former by death (which was rumoured to be murder, Ann. XIV.51), and the latter by retirement (Ann. XIV.53f.). Their replacement as principal ad­ visor to Nero was one man, G. Ofonius . Tacitus describes this man as obscuris oarentibus. foeda pueritia, impudica senecta (Hist. 1.72). After Nero•s fall, when the people demanded the death of those who had been faithful to Nero, Tigellinus' destruction was a source of great delight (Hist. !.72). Plutarch calls him the most hated of Nero's advisors ( 19), and Juvenal says that he was able to avenge an insult with death (Sat. !.155).

While Tigellinus is singled out as the one who corrupted Nero into every sort of vice (Hist. !.72} and the sort of counsellor that one.would expect a 8 young Princeps used to following a great deal of advice (with increasing ir­ 0 ritation at this point) to select,9 the matter is clear that Nero did get a great deal of advice. He was first directed by his mother, then Seneca and Burrus, and finally the infamous Tigellinus. Of course to blame Nero's failures as both a Princeps and a man on his counsellors is an oversimplification. The fact remains, however, that Nero was easily swayed by the influence of others. One possible reason for this is that Nero had other interests than the business of state (to which he was perhaps ill-suited). His last words, as given by Suetonius: gualis artifex pereo (Nero 49), whether authentic or not, are prob­ ably an accurate reflection of how Nero viewed his r6le in life. As the pol­

itical situation deteriorated around him, both from his own political incom~ petence and the inability of his advisors, Griffin says that it is difficult to resist the conclusion that Nero escaped more and more into a world of fan­ tasy. This is even allowing for a malicious distortion in the sources.lO

It would seen natural that a man used to taking advice, and particularly a young man whose life had been controlled by a woman such as his mother and, to a lesser e

eralization. While some women did acquire wealth, power, and a ~ertain,degree of "emancipation," this is no ground for assuming that such progress was pos­ sible, or even desirable for all women. Roman society offered women only an illusory brand of liberation. The most emancipated and self assertive female at Rome was in a virtual state of bondage if compared to the most retiring male. 13

While men generally idealized the woman who remained at home and faith­ ful to her husband, 14 there was no doubt that in the time of Nero a social change was taking place which saw more women assert themselves in traditonally male spheres. Like any social change, the emergence of this new r6le for some

women produced a reaction in the conservative sec rs o~ society. Since his- torians were usually from the senatorial class, and the senatorial class was the most conservative faction at Rome it is not surprising that some of this conservative reaction has filtered down tQ us through the sources. We find an almost paranoid fear of upper-class women as they are imagined by the ancient authors to be a menace to the existing social structure. Judith P. Hallett summarises:

Even upper-class Roman women who did nqt possess,special.·pol:it- 1cal influence nor concern~ tnenselves deeply with the work:ihgs of Roman government. seem to have been ·percei vect _by po 1i tic~ lly 10 experienced and aware Roman males as disturbances and even c threats to Roman political order.l5 The sources reflect the view that women were a force in politics to such a strong extent that Hallett has noted that even some modern writers are con­ fused as to women's actual influence on politics and the role imagined by the ancient historians.

Nero married three times: to Claudia Octavia in A.D. 53, to Poppaea Sa­ bina in A.D. 62, and to Statilia Messallina in A.D. 66. Of this third wife, Tacitus says virtually nothing since the account of the Annals breaks off be­ fore the date of their marriage. For this reason, the present thesis will ex­ clude her from consideration. What follows is a study of Octavia and Poppaea relying primarily on Tacitus' Annals to determine the political influence that these women exerted upon Nero. The method employed for making such a deter­ mination will be prosopographical; that is to say a uniform set of questions will be posed concerning the kinship, social standing, political contacts, etc. of these two wives. From the answers to these questions comes the conclusion regarding Octavia's and Poppaea's political influence upon Nero.l6

As mentioned earlier, the nature of a husband-wife relationship makes it difficult to be precise on the details of all interactions between the man and the woman. Enough information, however, can be gleaned from the sources to strip away the veneer of the role of Octavia and Poppaea imagined in the sources (particularly Tacitus) from their actual political rele in the Principate of Nero.

0 0 NOTES

1. B. H. Warmington, Nero: Reality and Legend (New York: W. w. Norton and eo., 1969), p. 2. 2. B. W. Henderson, The Life and Principate of the Emperor Nero (London: Methuen and Co., 1903). 3. Miriam T. Griffin, Nero: The End of a Dynasty (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1984), p. l6. 4. Michae1 Grant, Nero (London: Weidenfeld and Nico1son, 1970). 5. See n.3 above. 6. B. H. Warmington, Suetonius• Nero (Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1977); K. R. Bradley, Suetonius 1 11 Life of Nero:" An Historical Commentary (Brux- elles: Latomus, 1978). 7. Sarah B. Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves (New York: Schocken Books, 1975). 8. Tacitus, Annals 1.1; , Antiguitates Iudaicae XX.154.

9. Griffin, Nero, p. 101.

10. Ibid. , p. 164. 11. Nero was sent to live with Oomitia Lepida after Agrippina had been exiled in A.D. 39, and his father, en. Domitius , had died in A.D. 40. Although Nero seemed to have been on good terms with his aunt (Ann. XII. 19, 21; Suetonius, Nero 23}, he is rumoured to have poisoned her (Nero 34; Cassius Dio, LXI.17~ On her death Nero suppressed her will and inherited her estates at Baiae and Ravenna. 12. For example, J. P. V. D. Balsdon, Roman Women. Their History and Habits (New York: J. Day Co., 1963; reprinted., New York: Barnes and Noble, 1983), pp. 45f.; 283. 13. Judith P. Hallett, "The Role of Women in Roman Elegy: Counter­ Cultural Feminism, 11 Arethusa VI (1973): 105. 14. See for example the number of passages confirming this collected in Mary R. Lefkowitz, and Maureen B. Fant, eds., Women's Life in and Rome (Baltimore,,Mld.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982), especially pp. 133- 145.

11 12

15. Judith P. Hallett, Fathers and Daughters in Roman Society (Prtnce~ ton, N.J., 1984), p. 10. 16. For two studjes on prosopography see Lawrence Stone, "Prosopography,' Daedalus C (1971): 46-79; reprinted in Historical Studies Today, eds. F. Gilbert and S. R. Graubard (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1972), pp. 107- 140, and T. F. Carney, 11 Prosopography: Payoffs and Pitfalls," Phoenix XXVII ( 1973) : 156-1 79.

0 c CHAPTER TWO

OCTAVIA

In the year A.D. 53 Nero married Octavia, his step-sister, to whom he had been betrothed for four years. Octavia•s age at the time of her marriage and consequently, the year of her birth, have been a point of contention. Citing Tacitus (Ann. XII.58 and Ann. XIV.64), M. K. Hookins gives Octavia•s.age at the time of her marriage to Nero as eleven; thereby placing the year of her birth in A.D. 42.1 An examination of the evidence, however, indicates that relying exclusively on Tacitus produces an erroneous birth date for Octavia who, it will be concluded, was at least thirteen years old when she married Nero.

At Claudius 27, Suetonius lists the children of Claudius in order of their birth, and places Octavia•s name prior to that of Britannicus. 2 The same passage gives the date of Britannicus• birth as uicesimo imperii die ingue se­ cundo consulatu, pinning the date of birth down to ·February 12th, but leaving some slight confusion as to the correct year; the first three words supposing A. D. 41, the last three supposing A.D. 42. Dio assumes that A. D. 42 is the correct date (LX.l2.v}, but this is possibly an interpretation from Suetonius.3

Commenting on events in A~D. 55, Tacitus says guartum decimum aetatis annum Britannicus explebat (Ann. XIII.l5}, thereby correctly placing Britannicus• birth in A.D. 41.4 On purely biological grounds then, Octavia, as the elder child must have been born in the first half of A.D. 40. In addition, Dio puts Octavia•s betrothal to L. Iunius Silanus5 in the year A.D. 41 (LX.S.vii). How-

0 13 14 ever, conclusive evidence for a birth date for Octavia earlier than the one c suggested by Tacitus is found from an Ale

It is possible to postulate a date as early as A.D. 39 for the birth of Octavia. At Ann. XII.64, Tacitus remarks that Agrippina minor and her cousin Domitia Lepida, the grandmother of Octavia and mother of Messallina nee forma aetas opes multum distabant. It is known that Agrippina was born November 6th, A.D. 15.7 If Tacitus• statement about the cousins is taken literally (and there is no reason not to), Domitia would be about one or two years older than Agrippina. It would be hard than. to imagine Domitia giving birth to her child Messallina before A.D. 26. Similarly, it is difficult to imagine Messallina giving birth to Octavia before A.D. 39 although, one would suppose, physically possible. It seems, however, more natural to assume that Britannicus and Octavia were born little more than a year apart than to try to antedate the birth of Octavia. Octavia was therefore born in the year A.D. 40 and married to Nero when she was thirteen years old.

The confusion about Octavia's birth arises from the usually reliable Tacitus who, when giving details about Octavia's death in A.D. 62, says she was uicesimo aetatis anno (Ann. XIII.l5). Of course whenever. a major source such as Tacitus is shown to be wrong, some explanation is in order. Furneaux offers two possible emendations to explain the mistake. His note on the passage in question reads as follows:

It is suggested by Nipp [erdey] that the words in Tacitus may 11 have been 11 duo et vicesimo~ .. written in early MSS. as II et vicesimo, 11 and that it may have lost its first letters by con- 0 15 fusion with the, thrE!e .last of 11 PUella~ 11 Such .a reading as 11 quinto et vicesimo, 11 as suggested by Ritt(er], would seem more in accordance with her supposed real age, but less easy c to reconcile with the text.8

The first suggested emendation seems a little strained; why bother to abbreviate the three letter word 11 duo, 11 yet not the longer word 11 Uicesimo 11 ? The second emendation does not fit well with the chronology demonstrated above, since this would place Octavia's birth in A.D. 37 when Messallina was only about eleven, and possibly not yet married to Claudius. 9

Syme is less happy to relegate the error to that of a copyist. He be­ lieves that it is a genuine Tacitean mistake, but considers it to be 11 trivial.ul0 Even at that, Syme offers in defense of Tacitus the following remark: 11 The author failed to revise that portion of his work. Perhaps he did not live to complete it.ull Perhaps, but I suggest that another explanation for this Tacitean 11 error11 is possible, and a closer examination of the context will reveal it. To this end, it is worth citing the passage that refers to Octavia's age in full:

63. At Nero praefectum in spem sociandae classis corruptum et incusatae paulo ante sterilitatis oblitus, abactos partus conscientia libidinum, eaque sibi comperta edicto memorat in­ sulaque Pandateria Octauiam claudit. non alia exul uisentium 5 oculos maiore misericordia adfecit. meminerant adhuc quidam Agrippinae a Tiberio, recentior Iuliae memoria obuersabatur a Claudio pulsae: sed illis robur aetatis adfuerat; laeta aliqua ui derant et praesentem saeuitiamc mel i orts, ol im fortunae .. recor­ datione adleuabant. huic primum nuptiarum dies loco funeris 10 fuit, deductae in domum in qua nihil nisi luctuosum haberet, erepto per uenenum patre et statim fratre; turn ancilla domina ualidior et Poppaea non nisi in perniciem uxoris nupta, pos­ tremo crimen omni exitio grauius. 64. Ac puella uicesimo aetatis anno inter centuriones et mil-. 15 ites, praesagio malorum iam uitae exempta, nondum tamen morte adquiescebat. paucis dehinc interiectis diebus mori iubetur, cum iam uiduam se et tantum sororem testaretur comrnunisque Germanicos et postremo Agrippinae nomen cieret, qua incolumi 0 16 infelix quidem matrimonium sed sine exitio pertulisset. re­ 20 stringitur uinclis uenaeque eius per omnis artus exoluuntur; et quia pressus pauore sanguis tardius labebatur, praeferuidi ba 1nei uapore enecatur. addi turque atroci or saeutti.a .. quod caput . amputatum 1atumque in urbem Poppaea ui di t.

In this passage Tacitus brings to a climax a section dealing with the divorce and subsequent death of Octavia which he began part way through chap­ ter 59. This i·s also the most complete portrait of Octavia in the historical sources. The passage is highly dramatic, and clearly designed to show Nero and his future wife, Poppaea, in the blackest possible light. Poppaea hounds Nero for Octavia's death, and Nero complies by an edict listing a series of charges including treason, adultery, and the use of a5brtifacients; charges which were added to his initial charge of sterility.12 It matters not so much whether the charges are legitimate or not (and Tacitus gives no indication that the charges were anything other than fabrications}, they are used to show the brutal extremes to which Nero will go to eliminate an innocent victim. The reader is meant to feel the greatest possible sympathy for this euella,13 Octavia, who is exiled through no fault of her own, and then ruthlessly ex- ecuted by centurions and soldiers.

Tacitus says that Octavia's exile v-1as the most pitiful in recent memory and non alia exul uisentium oculos maiore misericordia adfecit (1. 4f, above). He cites the examples of Julia, the daughter of Germanicus, and Agrippina maior; pitiful exiles in their own right, but at least illis robur aetatis adfuerat {1. 7}. The fact of the matter is, however, that Agrippina may have had robur aetatis when she was exiled by in A:o. 29 (she would have been about forty-three years of age at the time), but the same hardly seems true for Julia who, when she was exiled with Seneca by Messallina in A. D. 41, was not more than twenty-three years of age. Is this another example of a Tacitean 11 error, 11 17 or is it not more likely that Tacitus is trying to evoke greater sympathy c from his readers for Octavia by showing in the strongest possible manner that the aforementioned exiles, sad as they were, did not compare to the present plight of Octavia?

Tacitus adds another interesting detail as he tries to arouse more sym­ pathy for Octavia. Poppaea•s ghoulish viewing of the severed head of Octavia (1. 22f) closely follows in the narrative a passage which ascribes the same act to Nero with respect to Rubellius Plautus {Ann. XIV.59). 14 By these par­ allel examples, Tacitus seems to be demonstrating a similarity in the savage­ ness of the characters of both Nero and Poppaea. The viewing of the decapi­ tated heads is all the more striking when we note that, according to Tacitus, the elimination of Rubellius Plautus was the last obstacle for Nero to overcome before the divorce of Octavia and subsequent marriage to Poppaea could be effected.

In the passage under consideration Tacitus, using highly emotional lan­

guage, wishes the reader to be moved to the greatest possible ~ympathy for Oc­ tavia. She is portrayed here, and not necessarily inaccurately, as an innocent victim, cruelly slaughtered by Nero•s brutality. To magnify the pathos, Tacitus has been intentionally casual about detail with regard to the ages of both Julia and Octavia. The phrase uicesimo aetatis anno need neither be construed as a copyist's error in transcription, nor a Tacitean oversight. The locution seems rather to be a deliberate dramatic technique employed by Tacitus to evoke maximum compassion for Octavia. The line ac uicesimo aetatis anno (1. 14) is ' intended to suggest to the reader something like, 11 and a young girl, only about twenty years of age ... It is not, as demonstrated above, an absolutely accurate statement, but that is not to say that it is false, intentionally misleading, 0 18 or an oversight. It is, however, a type of historical poetic license, bear­ ing enough approximation to the tr.uth to be accepted by Tacitus' original readers with little comment.

Before Octavia was betrothed to Nero,.:she-had been betrothed to L. Iunius Silanus. 15 Dio dates the betrothal to A.D. 41 (LX.S.vii), which would make Octavia only a year old, and Silanus about fifteen. Silanus was a very well connected young man since he was the second son of M. Iunius Silanus and Aemilia Lepida and therefore a great-great grandson of Augustus. In addition to his ·impressive pedigree, Silanus seemed to have been highly favoured by

Claudius. Suetonius says that Silanus was awarded th~triumphal insignia non­ dum pubes (Claud. 34), and Dio remarks that he was among the Vigintiviri in A.D. 41 and later a prefect of the city. He was allowed to hold magistracies five years earlier than customary (LX.S.viii). He also appears to have been among the collegium of the Arval Brethern as he seems to be listed in the Acta Arvalium for A.D. 43-48.16 He was praetor in A.D. 48 wherl hewould,have only been about twenty-two (Ann. XII.4), and he was with Claudius on his expedition to Britain in A.D. 43, being sent ahead to Rome to announce Claudius' conquest of the Britains (Dio LX.Zl.v).

Despite these eminent qualifications, Silanus was displaced from his rOle as Octavia's affianced through the machinations of Agrippina who desired to have Octavia wed her son; thus bringing Nero closer to the throne (Ann. XII. 3). First to remove Silanus, a plan was devised whereby L. , father of the future emperor, used his rank as ex-ce·nsor to bring a morals charge against Silanus thereby leading to his expulsion from the Senate.17 The pre­ text for the charges is given by Tacitus and involves Si1anus'.re1ationshjp with his sister; a relationship that Tacitus cal.1s non incestum, sed incustoditum 19 amorem {Ann. XII.4). Claudius gave ready ear to-the charges and cancelled the betrothal to Silanus in A.D. 48 .. As is common with men who father daughters late in life,18 Claudius seems to have doted on Octavia as Tacitus gives his motivation as caritate filiae. The next year, on the day of the marriage of Claudius and Agrippina, Silanus killed himself siue eo usque spem uitae pro­ duxerat, seu delecto die augendam ad inuidiam (Ann. XII.B). Suetonius, however, says that the suicide was compulsory (Claud. 27; 29), and Dio, although he~-·: offers a different reason for the cancellation of the betrothal, is also of the opinion that Silanus was killed (LX.31.viii). Shortly after the marriage of Claudius and Agrippina and the death of L. Silanus, Octavia was betrothed -· to Nero.

The year following the betrothal {A.D. 50); Nero was adopted by Claudius (Ann. XII.25). 19 As the sources agree, this was another plot by Agrippina to put a claim on the principate for Nero; tn this case in preference to Claudius' own son, Britannicus. In his chapter on the adoption, Tacitus tells us that the adoption was hastened by the agency of the imperial freedman, Pallas, ~ obstrictus Agrippinae ut consiliator nuptiarum et mox stupro eius inligatus. As Pallas argues his case for the adoption before Claudius, Taci:us makes him appeal to historical precedent: sic apud diuum Augustum, quamqua~ nepotibus subnixum, uiguisse priuignos; a Tiberio super propriam stirpem Germanicum ad­ sumptum. The entreaty by Pallas, which was no doubt enhanced by persuasions from Agrippina, was successful and Claudius adopted Nero on February 25th, A.D. 50.2°

From that point on, events moved swiftly to mark Nero as the designated heir to Claudius. Nero was allowed to assume the toga uirilis at age thirteen (one year before the usual age}, distributions of money were given in his name 20

to the soldiers and people of Rome, and his entry into public life was given formal recognition by his election to the consulship in A.D. 51. Although

Nero was not to assume the office until six years later, his pre~election and the granting of the title princeps iuuentutis were clear allusions to the grandsons of Augustus, Gaius and Lucius, who had been granted these same pri­ vileges to mark them as heirs to Augustus. In addition, the Senate granted Nero proconsular imperium outside the city and, at games given in his honour, he appeared wearing the .tri:umphal robe, which was customarily worn by the Princeps only on special occasions. This was especially significant because

on this occasion Britannicus was present, but gresse~_in the garb of a boy. After his adoption, Nero's portrait began to appear on coins. In the East, and on the Danube, both Britannicus and Nero were still celebrated; possibly because of an ignorance of the real state of affairs at Rome, but from official Roman coinage, the portrait of Britanniq.1s now disappears. 21 Nero's marriage to Octavia in A.D. 53 was the culmination of a series of extraordinary honours accorded to Nero marking him as Claudius' principal heir and thereby supplant- ing Claudius' actual son, Britannicus.

When Nero married Octavia he wc.s, in the strictest sense marrying his sister; a practice prohibited by law.22 Dio makes the. interesting ranark that before Octavia married Nero, she was adopted into another family; therefore any hint of a brother-sister marriage would be avoided (LX.33.ii). Certainly this would make good political as well as legal sense considering the fact that L. Silanus, Octavia's first betrothed, ~ad been disgraced on a charge of incest. In addition, the antics of Gaius with his sisters were not too far removed in time to have been forgotten.23

·There are, however, one or two problems with the statement of Dio that 21 need to be recognised. Dio does not name the family into which Octavia was 0 adopted. It is probably safe to assume that Claudius would not want his cher­ ished daughter transferred into a plebeian or even, I suspect, an equestrian family for however brief a period of time. If this assumption is correct, it is difficult to imagine how the name of the adoptive family would be lost. If the family were intimate players around the imperial household, their deed would be well known and consequently the family name easily retrievable. If the family were not so well connected, it is similarly difficult to imagine how they would let the opportunity of doing a favour for the Emperor slip by with no public record.

According to the Roman law of adoption, when a female was adopted she would assume the name of the adopted gens and thereby be transferred into the potestas of th~.new gens.24 In another oassage discussing the frankness of Afranius Burrus, Dio says that Burrus opposed the divorce of Octavia by telling Nero that he must give back Octavia's dowry; meaning the throne (LXII.l3.ii). Now, in fact, anyone could provide a dowry for a bride, but the more usual ex­ pectation would be that it would be provided by the wife's family. 25 ·In any case it would be very unlikely that the dowry would be provided by the husband's family. This is, in effect, what the remark of Burrus would suggest. Octavia would no longer be a Claudian, but the throne belonged to Claudius {theoretically the only one who could give it away), and he W09ld now be the father of only the groom and not the bride. Of course the remark by Burrus was intended as hyperbole, but it would lose significance if 1t referred to a dowry that could not be offered.

Although there is no firm ground for rejecting outright the testimony of Cassius Dio here concerning the supposed adoption of Octavia, the silence 0 22 of both Tacitus and Suetonfus regarding this matter is puzzling. It is not 0 difficult to envision a scenario whereby the unnamed adoptive family, in return for release from the obligation to provide a dowry and/or some other form of compensation, agreed to adopt Octavia for a brief period of time solely for the

purpose of allowing her to marry Nero without the h~nt of an incestuous mar­ riage. This would vindicate the witness of Dio, but it does seem exactly the sort of thing Tacitus, and particularly Suetonius, would be expected to report. It seems more likely, however, that the absolute sense of a Nero-Octavia, brother-sister marriage was simply ignored. The Roman aristocracy could find ways of circumventing almost any law,26 and by the time of the marriage it was well known that Nero was not Claudius' actual son and was being given prefer­ ential treatment to indicate his status as Claudius' heir-apparent. There was also a fine point that the betrothal of Octavia to Nero had taken place prior to the adoption. This may have allowed the first relationship to take pre­ cedence. In any case, it would seem that the dignitas of the Princeps would be sufficient to permit the overlooking of any minor legal technicalities. It is on this basis that it seems the testimony of Dio is spurious.

Despite the foregoing, the remark of Burrus is not without import. In fact, the salient feature of Octavia's relationship with Nero is the fact that it brought Nero closer to the seat of power. In order to examine Octavia's significance to the Neronian Principate, it is necessary to understand the . nature of the Julio-Claudian dynasty and how the system, until the time of Nero, had worked. To do this we must revert to the Principate of Augustus.

Augustus was arguably the single most important individual in Roman his­ tory. Whatever date one gives for the beginning of the Principatet 31, 27, or c even 23 B.C., all are agreed that it began with Augustus. What is so remark- 23 able is that Augustus, using legally recognised constitutional forms, was able to change the political structure of Rome from an oligarchy to a military mon­ archy in so short a period of time. Briefly, it may be stated that Augustus• power was vested in his holding tribunicia potestas and it was by virtue of this that successive Emperors held their power. 27 The dimensions of this power may be summarised as follows: the Princeps had the right to submit 11 bills 11 to the people, summon the Senate,;and put motions to it. Secondly, it:included the right of veto (ius intercessionis) and thirdly coercitio, which was the power of every magistrate to force citizens to comply with laws uncer threat of punishment. Fourthly, tribunician power included ius auxilii which gave· the Princeps the power to intervene on behalf of citizens who felt that they were being harrassed by other magistrates. Nowhere, however, was there any provision for this power to be hereditary.

... When Tiberius acceded to the Principate in A.D. 14 ~fter Augustus• death, " the situation was unprecedented. Had Augustus not survived in power for some forty years there may have been no need to fill the void he left when he died. The fact was, however, then when Augustus passed away, there could have been others living who remembered Ro:ne before his tirr;e. When Nera took the

throne in A. D. 54 it \•/as a mere forty years after the first succession by here- dity by Tiberius. Vet the Principate was not an overt monarchy, dominant as

the hereditary principle was in practice, so there could be no formal acknow~ ledgement of the tenet •. The accession of all emperors, no matter how they emerged, was indicated by the bestowal of various powers by the Senate.28 There was no law of succession to regulate the claim·.to the Pr-incipate. Miriam T. Griffin comments:

In theory, the choice belonged to SPQR (Senatus Populique Romani], 24 but the uncertainty went deeper, for there was no obligation on SPQR to choose a Princeps at all. The office died with each·incumbent: between the death of the old Princeps and the conferment of the traditional powers on the new, there was not even a formal interregnum, as e

Given the obscure nature of the office of Princeps, it is instructive to review how the hereditary principle had been enacted until the time of Nero. It is not difficult to demonstrate that Augustus planned for his heir to suer ceed not only to his fortune, but to his office as well. Augustus first built up his own following by exploiting his posthumous adoption by Julius Caesar.30 Since Augustus' only-leg-itimate child was a daughter by his first wife Scribonia,. he used both will and adoption as instruments of dynastic designation. He first married his daughter Julia to his nephew Marcellus, who died suddenly in 23 B.C. Julia was ne<.t married to Augustus' friend and m·ilitary expert M.

~Vipsanius Agrippa. Two of their offspring, Gaius and Lucius were adopted by Augustus in 17 B.C. This adoption indicated a clear preference by Augustus for his own bloodline since he adopted his grandchildren instead of his two

grown ps8ns, Tiberius and Drusus, who were Claudian by birth.31 After the

su~cessive deaths of tucius and then Gaius in A. D. 2 and 4 respectively, Tiberius and Agrippa Postumus (brother of Gaius and Lucius). were adopted by Augustus. Once again showing preference for his own blood descendants, Augustus first forced Tiberius to adopt Germanicus prior to his own adoption; German­ icus was Augustus' grandnephew, and married to Augustus' granddaughter, Agrip­ pina maior. From this intricate working of marriages and adoptions, the re­ sult was that Tiberius succeeded Augustus to the Principate; somewhat reluc­ tantly on Augustus' part, if one accepts Suetonius' quotation of the preamble 0 to Augustus' will: guoniam atrox fortuna Gaium et Lucium filios mihi eripuit, 25·

Tiberius Caesar mihi e~·parte dimidia et sextante heres esto (Tib. 23).

Despite Tiberius• being named as Augustus• successor, and the transfer- ence of power going relatively smoothly, the fact that there were no legal reg­ ulations for succession to the Principate was complicated by the marriage policy· of the imperial house. As Syme notes:

As the family circle of Augustus at one time comprised no fewer than three pairs of women bearing the names Octavia, Antonia and Marcella, all three of whom except the daughters of M. Antonius were twice married, the ramifications of the dynasty grew ever more complex, producing by now a large num­ ber of collateral connexions, the husbands or the sons of the women of his house.32

The idea of marriage by the ruling house to a foreign imperial house was out of the question since that would have given recognition to the monarchical nature of the new system. The Princeps was first of all a Roman aristocrat .who married within the Roman governing class. With the ever-increasing number of Senators having some sort of tie to the imperial house as the Principate continued, this tie "often inspired enough respect or fear to lead to more mar­ riage connections with t'nt family."33 The longer the ,Julio-Claudians held the Principa , the greater the number of people who could make a claim on the

throne; t~e Iunii Silani increased, the survivors from Tiberius' line grew up. and Claudius with his three marriages brought more families into the inner cir- cle of those claiming the Principate.

After Gaius was assassinated in.A.O. 41, the chose Clau- dius as their candidate for Emperor because he was the nearest surviving male relative to Gaius, and he was brother to Augustus' adopted grandson, the popular Germanicus. Claudius was, however, a Claudian and not in direct Hne·frCJm Augustus. He therefore lacked the family names, Iulius and Caesar; a problem 26 that he remedied immediately upon succession by calling himself Tiberius Clau­ dius Caesar Augustus Germanicus •. Claudius• son, Britann1cus, inherited the blood of Augustus• sister Octavia from both his father and his mother, but since there were no succession laws, Britannicus faced potential rivals for the Principate who were direct descendants of Augustus, and also older. These rivals included the Iunii Silani, the children of Augustus• granddaughter Aemilia Lepida; Rubellius Plautus, son of Tiberius• granddaughter Julia; and,· of course, Augustus• great-great grandson, Agrippina minor's son L. Domitius

Ahenobarbus. When Nero was adopted by Claudius he could claim his ancestry~~ from the reigning emperor as well as direct descent from Augustus. He there-­ fore outshone Britannicus as well as the other~ by a ~ouble ffliation. 34

Octavta•s pedigree was the same as that of Britannicus. Her name, of course, was Claudia Octavia, and the fact that she used the appellation Octavia was a propagandizing of her connection with the Augustan family. Nero was the grandson of L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (cos. 16 B.C.), who had married Antoni~. maior to whom he was betrothed in her infancy. Antonia was the daughter of Marcus Antonius and Augustus' sister Octavia, and Ahenobarbus was among ''the most able, the most nent and the most highly prized" of Augustus' allies. 35 A recently ennobled family, the Domitii provided eight successive consuls down to Nero who was the last of the line. 36 The marriage of Octavia and Nero therefore made sound political sense since it would unite the two houses of the Juli o-Cl audi an dynasty.. In a society that worshipped ancestors, and where ac­ cession to imperial power was dependent upon accumulating the most impressive pedigree to associate with the ruling house, any child that issued from an ~

Octavia-Nero marriage would have the strongest possible claim to the throne > since he would be pure Claudian through Octavia and Julian through Nero. 27 Tacitus tells us that Nero eargerly desired children (Ann. XVI.6) and the fact c that no child was born to Octavia and Nero through almost nine years of mar­ riage gives rise to speculation that not all the charges brought against Octavia by Nero were false.

The marriage also made sense in that it eliminated Octavia from becoming a potential marriage partner for those who supported Britannicus and might be tempted to stall Nero's impending accession.37 Her removal as a marriage par­ tner would also keep down the ever-increasing number of candidates who were aspiring to imperial power.38 For Nero•s part, the more connections that he could make with the Julio-Claudian house, the stronger his position as heir (as much as one could be heir) to the Principate would be. There were at least eight potential rivals that Nero faced upon his accession; each with a legi­ timate claim to the throne.39 While Nero made much of his adoption by Claudius, styling himself DIVI F{ILIVS) on coins at first, and retaining the filiation on the official records of the Arval Brethern until at least A.D. 60,40 his marriage to Octavia presented an expectation that would solidify his position; namely, none other, save Faustus Cornelius·sulla and his wife Claudia Antonia, could provide a child in the Claudian line.

Little has come down to us regarding the character of Octavia. She is hardly more than a footnote in both Suetonius and Dio, and there is no full­ blown characterization of her in the Annals as there is of her rival, Poppaea Sabina (Ann. XIII.45), other than the pathetic portrait painted of her at her death (Ann. XIV.63, cited above}, and almost aside comments about her nobilitas or probitas {Ann. XIII.12). Her marriage to Nero seems to have been loveless from the start and Nero soon tired of it. Tacitus uses the verb abhorreo to describe Nero•s feelings toward Octavia (Ann. XIII.l2), and Suetonius says that 0 28 when certain unnamed friends of Nero (Seneca and Burrus?) chided him in this respect, Nero replied that sufficere illi debere ••. uxoria ornamenta (Nero 35). Octavia has received sympathy and pity from the first century to the present and this is not surprising; she .is an appealing and sympathetic char­ acter while her husband is not. In fairness tbo~gh, it should be stated that her relationship with Nero was no ·less a marriage of convenience for him than for her, and that through their nearly nine years of marriage she was incapable. or at least unwilling to provide an heir for the Julio-Claudian house.

Octavia was not the first victim of a mariage de convenance in the house of the Caesars, nor indeed in the Roman aristocracy. -we can note Julius Cae-­ sar's cold-hearted behavior as he broke his daughter's engagement so that he could marry her to Pompey, or how he contemplated divorcing his own wife to marry Pompey's daughter (Suetonius, Julius 27). Augustus married off his daugh­ ter Julia three times; the third time to ·his step-son Tiberius in a match of great emotional pain to both (Suetonius, Aug. 63, 65; Tib. 7). The tradition runs even deeper as the legendary ancestor of the Julian house, Aeneas, cast aside two women who deeply loved him, Creusa and Dido (the second to carry out a political quest}, and eventually selected as his mate a king's daughter who cared nothing for him.

This is not to say that Octavia;s situation should be devoid of sympathy. Her plight did not escape the notice of the ancients either as she is the sub­ ject of the pseudo-Senecan tragedy tha Octavia; 41 which has been called "one· of the most bizarre documents 11 that have come down to us.42 Unfortunately, the play is not a very good one, and adds little to our knowledge of Octavia, other than to confirm certain historical situations such as popular uprisings at the time of the divorce of Octavia and Nero. Unless the reader is prepared to 29 delve into the extremely dubious practice of psychoanalyzing characters in a first century play from a twentieth century perspective,43 one is on. fairly safe ground agreeing with R. W. Garson's generalization of the characters in the Octavia:

Apart from a lack of dramatic excitenent; the ·indicationss re­ petitious to the point of monotony of Nero's iniquity {e.g. 235f.; · 438f.; 605f.) as well as Octavia's sufferings {e.g. 46f.; 65f.; '102f.; 914f.) may incline one to dismiss both characters as shal­ low stock types, the one of the~.wicked tyrant·, .the other of his innocent victim.44

One feature of the Octavia that does give us a bit of insight into the . - character of Octavia when taken in conjunction with other authorities is the numerous allusions to Octavia's popular support.45 This popular support is independently confirmed in both Tacitus and Suetonius who report that on first announcement of Octavia's dismissal by Nero there were popular uprisings in her

.favour (Ann. XIV.61; Nero 35). Not only~.that, but Burrus is represented as a .,- strong supporter of Octavia (Dio, LX.13.ii}.46 It is also natural to assume that Octavia would have a number of well placed supporters whom she had inher- ited from those loyal to Claudius' line, or from Agrippina after she switched her a11egiance to Octavia (£mn. XIII.l3f. ). The existence of a clientela of

Octavia sizable enough to be confused with a mob of plebs is corroborated by the remarks of Poppaea in reaction to the throng gathered in support of Octavia after her recall by Nero: sed uitam ipsam in extremum adductam a clientelis et seruitiis Octauiae quae plebis sibi nomen indiderint (Ann. XIV.61).

It is logical, as well, to assume that Octavia had great support among the Praetorian Guard . Burrus had not yet been dead a year at the time of

Octavia's divorce, so Ofonius Tige1linus~, his replacement, would not have had time to exert his influence fully on the troops who were, as Burrus said earlier: 30 praetorianos toti Caesarum domui obstrictos memoresgue Germanici nihil ad­ uersus progeniem eius atrox ausuros (Ann. XIV.7). These remarks were made in connection with the impending murder of Agrippina four years earlier; however they would seem to apply to Octavia as well since she was the daughter of Claudius and niece of Germanicus. Nor does Octavia hers,elf appear unaware of the importance of this connection since at her death cum iam uiduam se et tan- turn sororem testaretur communisgue Germanicos et postremo Agrippinae nomen cieret (Ann. XIV.64).

Yet with all this support; the plebs, the clients, the Praetorian Guard, Octavia seemed to lack the political astuteness to know how to use this pot­ ential power to ensure her survival. She certainly outdistanced her rival Pop­ paea in terms of the dignitas of her birth, and no ancient source credits Pop­ paea with any allies among imperial freedmen or powerful Senators. Poppaea, however, as we sha 11 see, was ab 1e to ex·ert. a much greater influence upon events with fewer political resources at hand. Perhaps _it was Octavia's_youth that handicapped her against her older rival; however, it should be remembered that

Octavia 1 s mother Messallina was not much older than Octavia when ~he married Claudius, nor was she much older than Octavia was in A.D. 62 when Messallina crushed an older rival, the elder Poppaea Sabina, in A.D. 47 (Ann. XI. 1f. ).

Virtually nothing is known about Octavi:a's political activities from her birth to her death, 'consequently little is known about her influence on .

Nero. What we do know, and,what can b~ deduced from what we do know does not suggest that she had any significant direct influence upon the Principate of Nero. What indirect influence she did have was bound up in the dynastic issue. Nero made more of his Claudian than Julian connection as the criterion for his holding the Principate. 47 . This fact is further danonstrated by noticing that 31

Nero's child by Poppaea was named Claudia. While there were still potential c rivals to the Principate alive, Octavia was needed by Nero to reinforce his claim to the throne. After these were disposed of, Octavia was no longer nec­ essary. From what we know of the character of Nero, it is not at all sur­ prising that these rivals were eliminated; what is surprising is the length of time that he took to do it.48 The irony is, of course, that by destroying all potential rivals to the throne, and being unable to produce an offspring of his own that survived, Nero destroyed the Julio-Claudian dynasty itself. Nero's continued consciousness of the dynastic element in his marriage to Oc- tavia is illustrated by the fact that he endured the loveless marriage for al­ most nine years. After the death of Poppaea, Nero proposed marriage to Antonia, Octavia's elder half-sister and widow of Faustus Sulla whom Nero had executed in A.D. 62. Nero was still trying to maintain his dynastic connection with the Claudian house. Since Nero had displaced her brother Britannicus as heir, ascended the throne by the assassination of her father, poisoned her brother,

banished and then ex~cuted her husband, and divorced, banished and finally killed her half-sister, it should not surprise us too much that Antonia declined the offer. Nor should it surprise us that Nero executed Antonia as well (Su­ etonius, .Nero...... 35) •

0 0 NOTES

11 1. M. K. Hopkins~ The Age of Roman Girls at Marriage," Po5ulation Studies XVIII (1965): 313, citing also M.·Bai'Ig in L Frtedlander.,ar::.­ stellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Rams, 8th ed. (Leipez~ 1910), p:-134. 2. Britannicus, PIR2 C 820. 3. Henderson, The Life of Nero, p. 453. 4. See PIR2 C 820 for citation of the evidence. 5. PIR2 I 829. 6. Cited in PIR2 C 820 and E. Mary Smallwood, ed.·, Documents 'Illustrating the Princi,at!S of Gatus, Claudius ·and Nero ~(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 196 ), no. 98a. 7. SeeP. A. Gallivan, "Confusion Concerning the Age of Octavia," Latomus XXXIII {1974): ll6f. Gallivan also cites Th. Monmsen, 11 0ie Familie des German­ icus,11 Hermes XIII (1898): 254f; reprinted in Gesammelte Shriften, vol IV {Berlin: 1906), p 27lf. 8. H. Furneaux, ed., The Annals of Tacitus, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1907), vol II, p. 312, loc. ci.t. 9. Messa1lina and Claudius seem to have been married during the Princi­ pate of Gaius Caligula, cf. PIR V 161. 10. R. Syme, Tacitus (0¥ford: Oxford University Press, 1958), p. 746. 11. Ibid. 12. Treason: Ann. XIV.63; Adultery: XIV.60, 63; Abortion: XIV.63; Bar ... renness: XIV.60. Infertility was a common cause for divorce, so Sarah B. Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives and Slaves (New.Vork: Schocken Books, 1975), p. 158 and probably a legitimate charge here. Furneaux, Annals, vol. II, p. 311, loc. cit., points out that causing an abortion was not a crime under Roman Law until the time of Septimius Severus. The charge of treason, if proved, would justify the death penalty. For the ease of obtaining a divorce see F. Schultz, Classical Roman Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951), p. 132f. 13. Although puella can be used to mean "young wife," the more usual term for a woman who had been married for almost nine years would be uxor or coniunx or even femina. Puella has a more emotive quality when used in this con­ text. Tacitus uses the same word again in reference to Servilta, wfdow of Annius Pollio, who was also condemned to death (Ann. XVI.30). 0 32 33 14. Rubellius P1autus, PTR R 85. See Stenma B (16}, p. 3 for his re­ lation to the Julio-Claudian house and consequently his claim on the throne. 15. PIR2 I 829. For his betrothal to Octavia see Tacitus, Ann. XII.2, cf. Dio, LX.S.vii; Suetonius, Claud. 34. 16. CIL VI.l.2032 •. 17. After a period of dormancy the office of censor appears to have _, been revived under Claudius in A.D. 47 when both he and L,- Vitellius held the office. Although the most important powers of the censor had always been vest­ ed in the Princeps, whether or not he held the actual office, no censors had been elected since 23 B.C. See Richard J. A. Talbert, The Senate of lm eria1 Rome (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984 , p. 27; cf. Furneaux, Ann a1 s, vo 1 . I I , p. 18, n. 3. 18. Claudius was about fifty years of age when Octavia was born.

19. Cf. Suetonius, C1aud. 39; Dio, LX.32~ii. 20. CIL VI.1.204l. 21. Grant, Nero, p. 30; Smal1wood, Documents, no. l05a. 22. Sane inter fratrem et sororem prohibitae sunt nuptiae! siue eo­ dem patre eademque matre nati fuerint, siue alterutro eorum, Gaius, Institu­ .. tiones Iuris Ciui1is 1.61 . 23. Suetonius, Gaius 24; Dio, LIX.11.ii. 24. Gaius, Inst. I.97f.; Gellius, Noctes Atticae V.l9. 23. Schultz, Classical Law, p. 123. 2S. For a detailed analysis of how the upper classes manipulated the l~w to meet t ir own ends see Peter Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privi­ legein t"e (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970). Garnsey points out that the first criterion of legal privilege 1t1as dignitas, p. 279.

27. SeeP~ A. Brunt, and J. M. Moore, eds., Res Gestae Divi Augusti (Oxford: Gxford University Press, 1967), p. 10. 28. Talbert, The Senate, p. 354. 29. Griffin, Nero, J3· 189. 30. J. A. Crook, Law and Life of Rome· (Londo·n: Thames and Hudson, 1967; reprinted., Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1978), p. 112 points out that the legal texts tell us nothing about this fonn of adoption. · 31. They were doubly Claudian because the line ran through both parents. Rather paradoxically the l"ine did not run to the esteemed Claudii Pulchri, but.to the more modest branch, the Nerones. Cf. Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution 34 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1939; reprinted., 1979), pp. 493f. c 32. Ibid., p. 421. 33. Griffin, Nero, p. 192. 34. Nero began his reign styling himself as "son of the deified Claud­ ius," then switched to the maternal line as "grandson of Germanicus, great grandson of Tiberius and great-great grandson of Augustus." See Griffin, Nero, p. 97; cf. CIL 111.346, ILS 233. ---- 35. Syme, RR, p. 378. 36. On the "felicitas" of the Domitii see Velleius Paterculus, II.lO.ii. 37. Bradley, Historical Commentary, p. 62. 38. J. B!ranger, "L'her!dit! du principat: note sur la transmission du pouvoir imperial aux deux premiers siecles," REL XVII (1939): 174 remarks, "la qualite de proche parent justifiait une pretent1on au.pouvoir imperial." 39. R. s. Rogers, "Heirs and Rivals to Nero," TAPA LXXXVI {1955): 195f. lists eight potential rivals that Nero faced on his accession: Britannicus (PIR2 820) natural born son of Claudius; Faustus Cornelius Sulla (PIR2 C 1464) las~ descendant of the Dictator,. half brother of Messallina and husband of Claudius' eldest daughter Claudia Antonia; Rubellius Plautus (PIR R 85) son of Rubellius Blandus and Tiberius' granddaughter, Julia; M. Iunius Silanus (PIR2 I 833) son of homonymous counsul of A.D. 19 and Aemilia Lepida, great granddaughter of Augustus; D. Silanus Torquatus {PIR2 I 837) brother of the aforementioned; L. Iunius Silanus Torquatus (PIR2 I 838) son of M. Silanus; Annius Pollio (PIR2 A 678) and Annius Vinicianus-(PIR2 A 700) brothers who were sons of L. Annius Vinicianus (PIR2 A 701) an active opponent of-the early emperors (Ann VI.9). 40. Smallwood, Documents nos. 21, 22; ILS 228, 233. 41. The authorship and date of this play are unknown, but the weight of scholarship _is that it was not composed by Seneca. T. D. Barnes, "The Date of the Octavia;" Museum Helveticum XXXIX (1982): 215-217 argues qijite convincingly from the historical allusions in the text for a date of late A.D. 68. Griffin, Nero, p. 260 n.2 believes that the sympathy expressed for Claudius and his children might suggest the reign of Vespasian. 42. C. J. Herington, "Octavia Praetexta: A Survey," QL n.s. XI (1961}: 18. 43. This seems to be the approach taken by R. W. Garson, "The Pseudo­ Senecan Octavia. A Plea for Nero?" Latomus XXXIV (1975): 754f. 44. Ibid.: 754. 45. For example: 183, 185, 572, 647, 780, 792.

0 35 46. This may be conjectured from Tacitus as well since the divorce is delayed until after the death of Burrus (Ann. XIV.51). c 47. Griffin, Nero, pp. 96f., 259 n.86. Nero was known as Tiberius Claudius Nero Caesar, or as he is sometimes called Nero Claudius Caesar Orusus Germanicus. This allowed him to display both the Claudian and Julian connec­ tions. 48. By the time of Octavia's divorce and execution in A.D. 62, only the weakest candidates of those listed in n.39 above still remained alive.

c CHAPTER THREE

POPPAEA SABINA

Nero's second wife was Poppaea Sabina. Her father~ T. Ollius,1 was an ex-quaester who perished before he could attain a higher station because of amici ti a Sei ani (E-nn. XI I I. 45). Poppaea' s narre ~ s taker: -::ram that of her mater- nal grandfather, C. Poppaeus Sabinus (cos. A.D. 9). 2 c~ ~~om Tacitus tes:

modicus or1g1n1s, principum amicitia ccnsulatum e: triumphale decus adeptus maximisque prouinciis per quattuor et uiginti annos impositus, null am ob ex imi am. artem sed quod par·iriegoti is ne~ue supra erat (Ann~· VI.39) .

.: ~ ' ' _.. ~- - . - ; . .. Although not of n~ble birth, Poppaeus was one of several n-ouf homines who were advanced by Augustus in the last years of his Principate. Poppaeus' brother, Q. Poppaeus Secundus, 3 was consul suffectus in the same year that Sabinus was consul (A.O. 9). It was through these recently ennobled maternal relatives . tbat Poppaea drew her dignitas and claritudo.

Probably born in A.O. 31~ the fact that Poppaea sumpserat (Ann. XIII.45) her grandfather's name has given rise to speculation that she was born posthu­ mously.4 However the practice of naming females after their maternal grandparent may simply reflect a modification in naming procedures which seemed to be taking place in the early imperial period.5 In any case, the verb sumo does not make it clear whether Poppaea was given the name at birth by her homonymous mother (aetatis suae feminas pulchritudine supergressa, Ann. XIII.45); possibly to·: · avoid association with her disgraced father and his relationship to ~ or

36 37 whether Poppaea took on the name of her own volition at some period in her life.

0 Prior to her marriage to Nero (to whom she was about six years senior), Poppaea was married to an equestrian, Rufrius Crispinus. 6 Rufrius was prae­ torian prefect with L. Geta from A.O. 47 until A.O. 51 when both were removed from office by Agrippina and replaced by Afranius Burrus. Tacitus says that the two were dismissed because Agrippina believed them to be Messalinae memores et liberis eius deuinctos (s.c. Britannicus and Octavia, Ann. XII.42). In A.D. 47, Rufrius was awarded the insignia praeturae for his part in the apprehension of Valerius Asiaticus who was charged with corrupting the troops and adultery with the elder Poppaea Sabina (Ann. XI.l-3}. It appears that Messallina had evidence of adultery between a freedman actor named Mnester,7 who was a partic­ ular favourite of Messallina's, and Poppaea. Since Messallina wished to destroy the latter without having to sacrifice the former, she brought about a charge of adultery with Asiaticus who also happened to have a garden that Messallina desired. The charges had their hoped for effect and Poppaea committed suicide while Rufrius was hailed for his haste in bringing about the arrest of Asiaticus, thereby making Rufrius to some degree culpable for the death of his mother-in­ law.

We have few details about the marriage of Poppaea and Rufrius, other than that it had ended by A.D. 58, and the union produced one son. If we use Hopkins' conclusion for the probable average age of marriage for Roman woman as thirteen,B and since we know that Poppaea was born about A.O. 31 (based on the date of Sejanus' fall and her father's involvement with him), we can pre­ sume that the marriage took place after A.D. 44. It is also safe to assume that the marriage took place before A. D. 51, the date of Rufrius' removal from the

prefecture since marriage with an official on the way' down~ rather than up was not 38

the best way for the granddaughter of an e< -consul to make social progress.

Poppaea was next associated with the future Emperor, M. Salvius . The exact nature of their relationship is difficult to detennine, although we possess no less than five accounts which refer to their association; Tacitus providing two versions himself-, 9 Of the records, however, only the account in the Annals is substantially di¥ergent. In that particular account, Tacitus por­

trays Otho as a somewhat nafve husband who~i s cuckolded when he boasts too -· freely of his wife's channs in front of a lecherous and unscrupulous Emperor.

Poppaea is the willing partner of Nero's lust who simulans that she canno!_r~­ sist her passion is captured by forma Neronis. Otho is then shipped off .to Lu­ sitania as provincial governor so that he may be removed as a rival to Nero for Poppaea.

,o; o, Pl utarch, Suetoni us and the e_yi dence provided by Taci tus • " imply that Poppaea either had a relationship with Nero before Otho came on the

scene, or as Plutarch recounts, a6TU a~6•epo~ ~~ lxpWv•o· As to the question

of whether o~ not Poppaea and Otho were ever actually married, G. B. Townend points out :':at 11 there is very scanty evidence for the marriage," further noting that the ___ gives 11 the only straightforward statements that ~oppae~ was

ever married to Otho." 10 In contrast to this position, G. E. F. Chilver be­ lieves that there is "at least corroboration" for an actu.al marriage having taken place in both Suetonius and Plutarch by their respective use of the phrases

diducto matrimonio and •ov ITormata<; "(\11J.ov.ll This evidence is in no way conclu­ sive since Suetonius does not list Otho as a ·former.spouse of Poppaea when

he lists those of the wives of Nero (Nero 35)~ and prior to using the phrase 0 diducto matrimonio, Suetonius, in the same passage, refers to the Otho-Poppaea relationship as nuptiarum specie (Otho 3t. The same sort of vagueness and lack 39 of precision may be being applied by Plutarch because, as Townend remarks, "few people can have known or cared whether the relationship was regularised."12 0 When Taci tus introduces the character of Poppaea Sabi na {Ann. XI II. 45), he gives a full and elaborate description of her:

Huic mulieri cuncta alia fuere praeter honestum animum. quippe mater eius, aetatis suae feminas pulchritudine supergressa, gloriam pariter et formam dederat; opes claritudini generis suffi ci ebant. sermo comi s nee absurdum ingenium: modestiam : '· praeferre et lasciuia uti. rarus in publicum egressus, idque uelata parte oris, ne satiaret aspectum, uel quia sic decebat. famae numquam pepercit~ maritos et adulteros non distinguens; neque adfectui suo aut alieno obnoxia, unde utilitas ostenderef:. tur, illuc libidinem transferebat. igitur agentem earn in matri­ monio Rufri Crispini equitis Romani, ex quo fi.lium genuerat, Otho pellexit iuuenta ac luxu et quia flagrantissimus in ami~ citia Neronis habebatur: nee mora quin adulterio matrimonium iungeretur.

Most authorities are agreed that Tacitus has borrowed this particular passage from Sallust's descriptionof Sempronia i-n Catilina. 13 In this particular para­ graph we have a portraiture (which, as Syme points out, is rare in the third hexad of the Annalsl4) of a woman with an ambitious nature, who lacked honestum

animum (p~rhaps to abstra ly trans1ated as "moral co:1sciousness"), to the

point tnat unde uti1itas ostenderetur, illuc libidi~em transferebat so that each of her relationshiGs was a step up the social ladder. Tacitus also describes a woman of culture and charm who was able to hold Nero's love for her even a'fiter he unintentionally killed her in a fit of rage in A.O. 65. 15

The beauty of which Tacitus sp~aks is attested elsewhere. The Octavia compares her beauty favourably to that of Helen.of Tray at lines 773 and fol­ lowing:

formam Sparte iactet alumnae licet et Phrygius praemia pastpr 40 uincet ufiltus haec Tyndaridos qui mouerunt horrida bella Phrygiaeque solo regna dedere.

In her native , an inscription has been found on the stucco surface of a sepulchral monument which A. W. van Buren suggests is a hope that the beauty and youth of Poppaea will 1ast:16

Sic tibi contingat semper florere, Sabina, conting·at fonnae, sisque puella diu.

The fact that Poppaea worked her way up the social ladder from,betng the daughter of a disgraced minor offic"tifl·,to. br;comiQg the. wife of t.he Princeps lend~ credence ·to.Tacitus' characterization'orPoppaea as an.·ambitious woman; however, how Tacitus utilises that characterization needs some careful consid- eration. The unboiJnded ambition with which Tacitus paints his picture of ~op­ paea leads him to implicate her in two murders: Agrippina's, Ann XIV.lf., and Octavia's, Ann. XIV.6lf.; however, whether or not Poppaea is as guilty in the death of Agrippina as Tacitus would like us to believe is open to some question.

Tcc~tus; account of the murder of Agrippina occupies the first ten chap-

hov1ever-, the reader becomes so caught up in the dramatic artistry of the pass- age that he allows certain inconsistencies in the narrative to slip by unnoticed. To indicate just a few of these discrepancies: when we first hear of the ship to be devised to carry Agrippina to her death, it appears that the ship is de­ signed to self-destruct while at sea, thereby throwing the victim into the water and, I assume, causing her death by drowning {cuius pars ipso in mari per artem effunderet ignarum, XIV.3). · However it is evident from what follows in chap­ ter five that Agrippina was a powerful swimmer since she was able to swim safely 41 to shore after the shipwreck even though she had suffered a shoulder wound. One wonders if Tacitus wishes us to assume that the collapsible ship pleased Nero (placuit sollertia, XIV.4} because he was ignorant of his mother's aquatic abilities. In any case, the plan whose sollertia pleased Nero was not the plan

by which the ship v1as constructed. since it appears from chapter five that the ship which was actually built was devised to crush Agrippina to death as the ceiling of her cabin came crashing down. There is mention in Suetonius that prior to the actual murder of Agrippina, Nero lacunaria, quae noctu super dor­ mientem laxata machina deciderent, parauit (Nero 35}, but Suetonius locates this

event at Agrippina's estate in Rome, not at Baie. Consequently it is easy to~ accept K. R. Bradley's view that the collapsible ceiling story 11 may have become assimilated in Tacitus' account of the shipwreck.'117 However, even if we grant this assimilation, Tacitus does not e

Afte~ the collapse of the ceiling, nee dissqlutio nauigii sequebatur (XIV.5), and those crew rs who were aware of the plot are quite prepared to bludgeon Agrippina to death contis et remis et quae fors obtulerat naualibus telis. In their enthusiasm for bloodshed and general ignorance of imperial _, personage, they mistakenly kill Agrippina's companion Acerronia in Agrippina•s stead. The question arises· as to why, if such an overzealous band of assassins could be found amor.g_,the marines of the Princeps, was it necessary to decide on· such an elaborate plan as a rigged ship to precipitate the murder, rather than attacking Agrippina at an opportune moment? The answer, Tacitus says, is because 0 42 ferrum et caedes quonam occultaretur nemo reperiebat (XIV.3), yet it is diffi-" cult to imagine a less furtive manner of dispatching a victim than the method described.

There are other examples of how this particular account follows illogi~' cally, but the instances listed above should suffice to indicate that Annals XIV.l-10 was written more for dramatic effect than historical accuracy.l8 One need not, and in fact should not, go as far as Ale

The allusion that Tacitus is making in Annals XIV.l-2 is that Poppaea spurred Nero on to murder his mother; however there are two details in the narrative that do not fit well with this insinuation. Tacitus has Nero becoming flagrantior amore in dies with Poppaea which would seem to indicate that Nero had a strong desire to legitimise his relationship with her. The reproaches that Poppaea hurls at the Princeps would also indicate a strong desir~ on her oart t:J f":',arry; either to improve her social standing as Tacitus has seemed to suggest, or because she was genuinely in love with Nero. The latter posit1on can be easily postulated because in the first instance Poppaea says as much (Ann. XII.46; XIV.61) ,20 and in the second instance because not even Tacitus reports any further instances of Poppaea •s ·infidelity after her marriage to Nero. Now, if the desire to marry was so strong in the hearts of both parties that a matricide would be committed, why was·there a three year gap between the murder of Agrippina and the divorce of Octavia; a divorce which the murder of Agrippina was to have facilitated? The reason that Tacitus suggests for the 43 delay was ob eius modi terrores '(Ann. XIV.59), and has generally been assumed to mean the elimination of Rubellius Plautus and Cornelius Sulla as potential 0 claimants to the throne. Furneaux mentions, however, that the meaning of the phrase is not entirely clear since the phrase may well refer to a lacuna in the text in the same sentence. 21 Even if the meaning of the phrase can be assumed to refer to Pl aut us and Sull a, why were these men not cut down earlier? Surely if Nero's passion for Poppaea was so strong that he could murder his own mother,· the execution of potential rivals to the throne would have been a small matter in comparison; exeuses for the execution of both could have been found as early as A.D. 55. 22 The delay in the marriage is also puzzling since Suetonius. tells us that Nero married Poppaea duodecimo die post diuortium Octauiae (Nero 35), and although this precision cannot be independently confirmed, it does indicate a certain urgency to marry.

.. The second enigmatic feature atta.ched to Poppaea's crimina in XIV.l is "'' her reference to her fecunditas. Furneaux and others believe Poppaea to be referring to the child that she conceived by Rufrius Crispinus,23 btit the ·con--

ception of a child by another man would not prove Poppaea 1 S fecunditas to Nero. First century Romans had long since known that conditions for conception were dependent upon both partners. 24 Nero, incidentally, seems to have had very little regard for Poppaea's first child in any case: Suetonius reports that Nero had him drown by his own slaves guia ferebatur ductus et imperia ludere (Nero 35}.

The solution to why the marriage was delayed and why Poppaea refers to her fecundity is germane to the understanding of Tacitus' characterization

of Poppaea and her imperial influence. If we compare the two "nagging" speeches ·of Poppaea to Nero found in Annals XIV.l and later in XIV.61 where Poppaea 44 urges Nero finally to divorce Octavia, even a cursory examination will reveal a number of similarities in the two. Both speeches are, of course, intended to spur Nero on to effect marriage with Poppaea. In both speeches Poppaea ac­ cuses Nero of being incapable of making his own decisions: incusare principem et pupillum uocare, and qui iussis alienis obnoxius non modo imperii sed liber­ tatis in XIV.l, and metu ... Nero inclinatione populi mutaretur, and libens quam coactus acciret dominam in XIV.61. In both accounts Poppaea shows concern over danger to herself: ituram quoque terrarum ••• quam uiseret periculis eius immixta in XIV.l ,_:and uitam ipsam in extremum adductam a clientelis et ser­ uitiis Octauiae in XIV.61. In both speeches she makes reference to her love­ for Nero: rhetorically in XIV.l with scilicet displicere •.••: uerum ani.mum, an

less cryptic_ally in XIV.61 with j_g_ (matrimoniu~ sibi uita potius. ·Twice she makes reference to pedigree: rhetorically agains to her own at XIV.l with sci­ licet displfcere~et triumphalis auos, 25 and at XIV.61 to the legitimacy of the child of Nero•s that she is carrying: ueram progeniem penatibus Caesarum datura sit. 26 And, of course, Poppaea makes reference to child bearing in both speeches

_s_c ,_·l_i __ c..;:;_e...:...t _d::._i:..;::s-J:..p..:-1 -'-ic:::..ce=-:.r-=e'--'-. -''---'-~fe;::;_c=u"-'-n:.C::d-'-i .::...:t a=-t=-=e:..c:.:.m , XI V • 1 ; u e ram Dro g en i em pen at i b u s Ca e- s

From the foregoing examples of similarities in the speeches, it could be concluded that one speech is merely the reworking of the other. To be more precise: the first speech is a reworking of the second, inserted out of context for dramatic effect in the first instance, and to cast aspersions on Poppaea in the second. Certainly the remarks about the pressing desire to marry and the fecundity of Poppaea make much better sense if delivered in the context of the imminent divorce of Octavia and pregnancy of Poppaea, than if delivered 0 in the context of a matricide that had been on Nero's mind for some four years.2i 45 It matters little whether or not the conversation between Poppaea and Nero took 0 place as Tacitus reports it, but when the similarities in the speeches are noted, coupled with the fact that Poppaea appears in Book XIV only in these two instances (that is to say over a period of three years), we are forced to agree with R. Martin that 11 the conclusion is inescapable that the structure of Book XIV is deliberately contrived by Tacitus to bring out the parallelism of the two actions of Poppaea.n28

Tacitus has a preconceived notion of the character of Poppaea who, by the time he was writing, had probably already developed in her own tradition as a femme fatale; if only by virtue of the fact that she remained faithful to a detested Emperor until her death. To Tacitus, it was entirely likely that Poppaea influenced Nero's decision to kill Agrippina. Yet the liaison between the two was less than a year old in A.D. 59 and, if Poppaea was so influential at such an early stage in the relationship that she could prompt the Princeps to matricide, it is highly unlikely that she would patiently endure three more years with only the status of Nero's mistress to show for it. B. H. Warming­ ton says that 11 There is much to be said for the view that she did not attract Nero's interest until 62. 1129 but this would even further complicate the Poppaea­ Otho accounts (see above), which seem to have some basis in fact, however gar­ bled they have come down to us.

Perhaps Martin best explains Poppaea's r61e, or at least Tacitus' per­ ception of Poppaea's rOle in Book XIV:

Yet, though Book XIV has a palpably organized structure, artis­ tic unity is not its main objective. Rather, by seeking to give coherence to a chain of events, Tacitus is expressing a view of the history of the period. He rejects the easy solution of looking for a single point in time when Nero's reign took the conventionally expected turn for the worse. Instead he sees the 0 46 dynastic murders of Agrippina and Octavia as part--albeit an important and sensational part--of a nexus of events that in­ volved a significant shift of power within the imperial house­ c hold and in the emperor's relations with the senatorial class, whose authority he had pledged himself in his initial address to respect.30

Whatever Poppaea's part in the actual divorce and subsequent murder of Octavia, the part played by her at the beginning of Book XIV should be discounted. Poppaea may have been an incredibly ambitious woman, but she did not encourage Nero to murder Agrippina. Suetonius gives a less dramatic but more cold­ blooded account of the murder, but makes no mention of a rBle for Poppaea (Nero

34). Cassius Dio has Poppaea encouraging Nero to "get rid of" {5L6AAu~L}, his mother, but her rBle is not that of an instigator; the suggestion comes about not from Poppaea's ambition, but rather because Agrippina has been making in­ cestuous advances toward Nero (LXI.l2.i). The passage in Annals XIV which char­ acterizes Poppaea as the driving force behind Agrippina's murder is a dramatic ploy which heightens the suspense of the book's first ten chapters and gives Book XIV an almost ring composition quality by having the book begin and end with Poppaea encouraging Nero to murder. In addition, the r6le in Book XIV assigned to Poppaea by Tacitus is his way of making sense of two significant events in the shift of power in the Julio-Claudian principate.

Certainly the portrayal of Poppaea in Book XIV is also consistent with the way in which Tacitus wishes to represent her. A very interesting example of how Tacitus wishes his readers to see Poppaea is found in XIV.61, which re­ lates Poppaea's part in the events leading up to the divorce and murder of Octavia. Herein Poppaea is described as semper odio, turn et metu atrox. The use of the word atrox is striking; among its translations lewis and Short give, "horrible, frightful, dreadful, savage, cruel, fierce, harsh." The English 47

translations have an emotive quality about them and, not unexpectedly, ~ c (like its counterparts, audax and ferox) is most often employed in the context of a conflict.31 Tacitus has used a word here to describe a woman who was possessed with an inordinate degree of ambition; a quality which was considered quite unmatronly. Michael Kaplin comments on the use of atrox:

These adjectives audax, ferox, and atrox are often used to de­ scribe soldiers, as is natural, and here they frequently have a neutral denotation; that is, they receive a positive or neg­ ative valence, if any, only from their context. Where these words are used to describe women, however, their denotation changes and immediately loses all neutrality; at once they have a negative quality and their significance becomes pejor­ ative. The difference between these two instances is simple enough; the qualities implied ... are properly masculine .•• but they can only be applied to those females who aspire toward a masculine r61e, when they have already both abandoned proper femininity and instead are representatives of a negative masculinity {from a Roman point of view).32

This last statement is particularly true of Tacitus• representation of Poppaea; a woman who moved up the social ladder by adultery to become both wife and advisor to the Princeps (Tacitus calls her principf intimum consiliorum, Ann. XV.61), 33 and the only woman other than Agrippina to receive the title, Augusta, while her husband was still alive.34

The only other women that Tacitus designates as atrox are: Agrippina maior (Ann. IV.52). Agrippina minor (Ann. XII.22; XIII.13), and Pollitta, wife of Rubel11us Plautus (Ann. XVI.lO). True to form, each of these women dis­ played unmatronly qualities: Agrippina maior is twice described as having mas­ culine qualities as she assumes the rBle of a general (sed femina ingens animi munia ducis per eos dies induit, Ann. I.69), and in a passage noting her char­ acter {sed Agrippina aequi impatiens, dominandi auida uirilibus curis feminarum uitia exuerat, Ann. VI.25). Agrippina minor breached custom when she received 48 the homages of an acquitted tribal chieftain while seated next to Claudius

(nouum sane et morjbus ueteruminsolitum~ .feminam signis Romanis.praesidere:.ipsa semet parti a maioribus suis imperii sociam ferebat, Ann. XII.37), and presided at a spectacle wearing a Greek military cloak (Ann. XII.56). Nero was also forced to leave his throne to intercept Agrippina who praesidere simul parabat at a reception for foreign envoys (Ann. XIII.S). Pollitta is a much more sym­ pathetic character than the Agrippinas or Poppaea, but she still fulfills the essential requirement for the designation atrox: she displays features that are outside the norm for her sex (modo muliebri eiulatu, aliguando sexum egressa uoce infensa cl ami tab at, Ann. XVI .10).

To underscore the masculine connotations of atrox, a search of Thesaurus Linguae Latinae reveals that in the extant authors the overwhelming majority of divine or mortal beings who are described {or have their deeds described} as atrox are male. In fact, the only females other than those mentioned in the Annals are: Juno, Medea, Eurydice, Argia, and a certain Theoxena in an act of murder-suicide. 35 What is even more remarkable than the paucity of examples is the fact that t only one who has any claim to historicity is Theoxena; all the rest are mythological characters.

The above serves to illustrate that Tacitus had a very specific moti­ vation for describing Poppaea as atrox. That motivation was to show that Pop­ paea was a woman who overstepped the bounds considered acceptable for a Roman matron. This is completely consistent with the portrait that Tacitus is paint­ ing of the wife of Nero: Poppaea was a woman·whose ambition exceeded the limits that Tacitus considered to be acceptable for a Roman. matron. The u1t1mate. goal of this ambition, as Tacitus recognised, was the acquisition of power :~ ~ (unde utilitas ostenderetur illuc libidinem transferebat, Ann. XIII.45). As 49 suggested above, the portrait that Tacitus paints of Poppaea was essentially an accurate one. It therefore becomes instructive to look at some historical c events to try to determine if the hand of Poppaea can be discovered in any of them.

We have already seen Tacitus points to Poppaea•s involvement in the mur­ ders of Agrippina and Octavia, but we have rejected his claim that she played a part in the death of Agrippina. Tacitus also associates Poppaea with the Praetorian Prefect, G. Ofonius Tigellinus. Tigellinus was one of two prefects appointed by Nero after the death of Afranius Burrus, but Tigellinus had a greater influence with the Princeps and was the associate of Nero's most secret profligacy (Ann. XIV.51). As pr1ncipi intimum consiliorum with Tigellinus (Ann. XV.61}, Tacitus makes Poppaea guilty by association with the debauched under­ takings of Nero such as the floating brothels of Annals XV.37 which were plan­ ned by Tigellinus. In her r6le as advisor to Nero, Tacitus directly implicates Poppaea in the execution of Seneca (Ann. XV.61) since it is to her and Tigellinus that Nero turns when deliberating about Seneca.

Turning to the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, we find further evi­ dence of Poppaea. In his autobiography, Josephus relates the story of his first journey to Rome; a journey made to secure the release of certain priests of his acquaintance (Vita 13-16). These priests had been bound over to Rome by the procurator, Felix (brother of the imperial freedman, Pallas}, on an unspecified charge which Josephus describes as 11 Slight and trifling." After nearly perish- -· ing in an Adriatic shipwreck, Josephus was rescued by a Cyrenian ship and trans- ported to Puteoli where he struck up a friendship with a Jewish actor, Aliturus, who was a particular favourite of Nero•s.36 Josephus' account of the subsequent events reads as follows: 0 50

0

Through him I was introduced to Poppaea, Caesar's consort, and took the earliest opportunity of soliciting her aid to secure the liberation~Df the priests. Having besides this favoQr, received large gifts from Poppaea, I returned to my own country.37

The citation refers to events which occurred in A.D. 63 when Poppaea and Nero had been married for about one year. A further attestation of Poppaea is found in Josephus' Antiguitates Iudaicae,XX.l89-196 wherein Josephus recounts how King Agrippa's unusually large chamber afforded him a marvellous view of all Jerusalem, including the temple. Since it was sacrilege for a Gentile to look upon the inner workings of the temple, the leading men of Jerusalem erected a high wall on the arcade of the temple to block Agrippa's view. This action

.~understandably angered Agri ppa, but even ~more so, it angered Festus, the pro­ curator, who ordered that the wall be torn down. The refused, but were

granted permission by Festus to appeal their case directly to Nero. A dep- utation of among their number, as well as the high oriest and the keeper of the treasury was sent to Rome where they received a favou e hearing from Nero, and were allowed to leave the wall intact. The reason for the success oft

deputation, Josephus tells us, is that 11 in this he [Nero] showed ·favour to his.

wife, Poppaea, who was a worshipper of God W~oae~~~) and who pleaded on behalf of the Jews 11 (Ant. Iud. XX.l95).

The third reference that Josephus makes to Poppaea is found in Ant. Iud. XX.252 and concerns the appointment of Gessius Florus to replace Albinus as procurator of Jerusa 1an. Accordi'ng to Josephus, Fl or us was a singularly wi ek­ ed individual whose actions as procurator at last 11 constrained us to take up 51 war with the Romans " (Ant. Iud. XX.257). On being appointed procurator Florus~ a Greek, brought with him his equally wicked wife because "it was through her influence that he obtained the post, she being a friend of Poppaea, Nero's con­ sort11 (Ant. Iud. XX.252).38

From the foregoing, Josephus gives clear evidence that Poppaea influenced imperial decisions in three areas: the disposition of accused prisoners, the reception of imperial petitions, and the appointment of provincial officials. Josephus is writing about the Jews, so he has interest in the administration · of other provinces only so far as they affect the Jews. But if Poppaea coulcL be instrumental in the appointment of the chief offiCial-of a troublesome'... ·· · province, it is not too rash to speculate that minor posts in other provinces could be filled at her whim as well. We have mentioned above that Agrippina's presence during an imperial audience was a sore point with Nero {Ann. XIII.5}, although she did it with some regularity~ we would expect, while Claudius reigned. While Josephus is not explicit as to whether Poppaea was actually present v1hen the delegation from was received, the fact that Nero discusse the matt:;r ·,Ji th her is further confi nnati on of the role accorded her by Tacitus as an int~ counsellor of the Princeps.

Since Josephus has presented evidence that seems to cast Poppaea in a favourable light, at least with respect to her relations with the Jews, thera has been speculation in the past that Poppaea was a Jewish convert. These spec­ ulations have centred around Josephus·• use of the word eeoae~f)c;; to describe Poppaea. The arguments for this position were convincingly laid to rest by E. M. Smallwood who demonstrated that it was quite unlikely for someone of Poppaea' stature to be able to fulfill the fundamental requirement of Judaism; namely, the repudiation of idolatry and worship of YHWH alone, without causing signif- 52 icant enough consternation that some echo of it would have survived in the c extant sources.39 Clearly this is one instance where the lack of testimony in the Octavia is relevant. Smallwood further suggested that the Greek word

11 St:oa&j3f]~, translated above as Worshipper of God, .. may mean nothing more than 11 Very rel1gious.u40

While it is easy to accept Smallwood's arguments that Poppaea was not a Jewish proselyte, it is still difficult to explain why Poppaea would inter­ vene on the Jews• behalf in a matter that concerned religion. At the turn of this century, Philippe Fabia suggested that Poppaea belonged to an unortho­ dox brand of Judaism:

Ce qui est vraisemblable, c'est que Popp!e avait adopt~ une partie des rites de la religion juive. Depuis longtemps il y avait a Rome beaucoup de juda,sants, prosalytes bizarres qui paraissent avoir attach! bien plus d'importance au culte qu'aux dogmes 1 pratiquants bien plus que croyants. Popp!e fut de ce nombre. ~+1

While this seems to be an extreme statement to suggest that a member of the imperial household could practice a 11 bizarre 11 religion, the testimony of Jose- phus seems to indicate that Poppaea had at least a passing interest in Judaism.

If thts assumption is correct, it can be concluded that Poppaea must have had some concrete knowledge of the Jewish religion, and this would be of little consequence were it not for the fact that thts leads to some interesting speculation on how Poppaea may have used this knowledge to influence Nero. In A.D. 64 a great fire broke out in the city of Rome. 42 Cassius Dio and Suetonius unhesitatingly ascribe the conflagration to Nero, and Tacitus, although he leaves the question open, makes it clear that rumours abounded that Nero was the source of the destruction. In order for Nero to shift the blame from him- 0 53 self, Nero charged the incendiary to the Christians living in Rome, thereby c earning for himself the infamy of initiating history•s first recorded organ­ ised persecution of Christians. While the legal basis for such a persecution has been debated for centuries with no satisfactory conclusion,43 the question still arises as to why the Christians were chosen as scapegoats in the first place. In Ann. XV.44, Tacitus implies that they were easy targets odio humani generis, but in a city such as Rome in which Tacitus himself admits cuncta undigue atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque, how did Nero manage to single out Christians as an identifiable minority among such an amalgam of superstitiones?

One possible answer is that there was a sufficiently large number of Christians in Rome who were evangelistic enough to make their ideas known to the point that the objectionability of their views became known to the Princeps. Since we are speaking of a date no more than twenty-five years after the first missionary activity of St. Paul, this seems unlikely. The general ignorance that Pliny, an ex-consul, displays about Christian practices and beliefs when

he is writing some fifty years later (~. X.96) would argue against these be­ liefs and practices being well known as early as A.O. 64. Tacitus, himself a former consul, also thinks his readership ignorant enough about Christians that he has to describe who they are.

A better solution would be to believe that Nero had some "inside infor­ mation" on the beliefs and practices of Christians, and assessing these was able to recognise that Christians would be an easy target group on which to direct the wrath of the populace. In a polytheistic society such as Rome, the dis­ tinction between monotheistic religions is blurred, and the only people capable of drawing distinctions between one form of monotheism and another (in fact, 0 54 the only people who would care to), are the adherents of the individual relig­ ions. The group most likely to be able to draw distinctions between Christians c and themselves, and the group that had the most to gain by so doing were the Jews. If Poppaea had a concrete knowledge of Judaism, as suggested above, the person most able and most capable of indicating to Nero the presumed beliefs of Christians, and how they were distinct from other monotheistic religions such as Judaism, was Poppaea herself. As mentioned above, Poppaea was an in­ timate advisor of the Princeps, and it is not unreasonable to suspect that at moments of crisis, such as this devastating fire, Nero turned to Poppaea for advice on how to cope. Her suggestion was to shift the blame for the fire onto the Christians whom she identified as a group and whom she knew would be a pop­ ular target.44

Another possible influence that Poppaea may have had upon Nero is found by examining a riot which occurred in the town of Pompeii in A.D. 59, just after the murder of Agrippina. Tacitus describes the events and consequences of the riot as follows:

Sub idem tempus leui initio atrox caedes orta inter colonos Nucerinos Pompeianosque gladiatorio spectaculo quod Liuineius Regulus, quem motum senatu rettuli, edebat. quippe oppidana lasciuia in uicem incessentes probra, dein saxa, postremo fer­ rum sumpsere, ualidiore Pompeianorum plebe, apud quos specta­ culum edebatur. ergo deportati sunt in urbem multi e Nucer­ inis trunco per ulnera corpore, ac plerique liberorum aut par­ entum mortis deflebant. cui us rei iudicium princeps senatui, senatus consulibus permisit. et rursus re ad patres relata, prohibfti publice in decem annos eius modi coetu Pompeiani collegiaque quae contra leges instituerant dissoluta; Liuin­ eius et qui aliJ seditionem conciuerant exilio multati sunt. (Ann. XIV.l7).

That this particular riot actually occurred, there seems to be little doubt. since in addition to the Tacitus passage, a wall painting in Pompeii depicts c 55 the riot, and three graffiti refer directly to it. 45 The passage seems explic­ 0 it enough, and is usually interpreted as follows: at gladiatorial games held in Pompeii, a riot broke out between the visiting Nucerians and the Pompeians. Since the Senate deemed the Pompeians to be the instigators of the disturbance, the city was punished by the banning of all gladiatorial shows for, a period o·f

ten years, the dt~solving of all illegal collegia, and the exiJing of th~ per~ petrators of the fracas.

Of particular note here is the banning of gladiatorial combats. These shows were of preroman institution and apparently originated as an element in

funeral games. It was thought that were f~rst imported from Camt pania or Etruria and although stories about their source are notoriously unre­ liable, repeated evidence confirms the gladiatorial games' association with fu­ nerals.46 It seems quite probable then, that these games never totally lost the religious significance that would.be··associated with being connected tofu­ nerals. A modern parallel might be drawn to the observance of such Christian holidays as Thanksgiving or Easter. While these dates are little more than a day off wo for many people, a certain segment of the population observes these days with religious devotion. As ancient evidence for the continued re- ligious overtones of the games, we can cite the Younger Pliny who commends a certain Valerius{?) Maximus for giving a gladiatorum munus on the occasion of. his wife's death:

Recte fecisti quod gladiatorum .munus Veronensibus nostris pro­ misisti, a quibus olim amaris, suspiceris, ornaris. inde etiam uxorem carissimam tibi et probatissimam habuisti, cuius memoriae aut opus aliquod aut spectaculum, atque hoc potissimum quod max­ ime funeri, debebatur. {IQ_. VI.34). c W. 0. Moeller remarks, 11 It appears, then, that the munera gladiatoria, at least 56 for some sections of the population, were at the time of the riot at Pompeii c an integral part of Roman civic and private religion.'•47 The banning of gladiatorial shows would therefore have a devastating psychological effect on the citizens of Pompeii. Moeller argues that such a ban was a punishment that far exceeded the nature of the crime since the Senate was, in effect, tampering with the religious customs of the citizens.48 He also notes that the banning of games by the central government was enforced five other times in history, and four of those five times the ban was part of a number of other punishments aimed at reducing the status of the city involved.49 It is for this reason that Moeller believes that the ban did not refer to gla­ diatorial games proper, but rather to a non-mortal type of conflict carried on by a collegium of young men.SO

There is, in contrast to this view, little evidence to support the col­ legia iuuenes being much more than an association of schoolboys. Moeller him­ self cites no evidence for the existence of such an association in any city or town other than Pompeii, nor does he give evidence for the association existing in any period other than the one under discussion. 51 It seems better, there­ fore, to hold with the traditional view that the ban was to include all glad­ iatorial shows, as the text seems to indicate; and to further add that this ban was indeed a severe punishment, and was aimed at reducing the prestige of the city.

The answer to Moeller's implied question as to why the Senate would wish "to damage the Pompeians vitally" by issuing such a harsh edict is found by considering recent happenings vis-a-vis the Senate and Nero. On Nero's eleva­ tion to the principate in A.D. 54, his accession speech promised to correct the 0 57 abuses of the Claudian regime. In particular, Nero promised to give the Senate an active role in the administration of government, and he further promised not to tamper with the ancient traditional roles ascribed to it (teneret antiqua munia senatus, consulum tribunalibus Italia et publi.cae.prouinciae adsisterent,

Ann. XIII.4).- Of particular note here is that Tacitus, who.seldom h~s:any praise for Nero, says that Nero kept his promise (nee defuit fides, multague arbitrio senatus constituta sunt, Ann. XIII.5).

It was theview·of Th.eodor Mommsen that from the time of Augustus there was a dyarchy of Senate and Princeps, by which Mommsen meant a co-existence of responsibility. This view has now been generally rejected, and as Richard J. A. Talbert writes in reference to the Tacitus passage cited above, "no other evidence supports such a rigid demarcation, and there is much which argues against it."52 Talbert further adds that both "senate and emperor dealt with ./Italy and legislated for it, just as they'"did for all other parts of the em­ pire."53 Nevertheless, it remained true that the functioning of the Principate as a system of government could only remain safe and effective if the Princeps had the suoport of the Senate. The price that the Senate demanded for coopera-

tion '>'~as respect for constitutional forms, general deference to the Senate as

a body, and of course, the opportunity for the Senate's more ambitious members to climb the social orders to their personal aggrandisement.54

With this in mind we revert to a disturbance that broke out in another Italian town, Puteoli, in A.D. 58; one· year before the riot occurred in Pompeii. Tacitus tells us that to ensure that the violence, which had already progressed to the point of saxa et mina ignium, did not lead to bloodshed, C. Cassius was sent as a special commissioner to restore order (Ann. XIII.48). He was not successful, however, so at Cassius' own request the job of restoring order 58 was transferred to the brothers Scribonii, Rufus and Proculus. The brothers were armed with a cohort cuius terrore et paucorum supplicio rediit oppfdanis c concordia. What seems to have happened was that the Senate's first attempt at a diplomatic solution to the trouble through C. Cassius pleased neither side, so at the urging of Cassius, the Senate resorted to more forceful, expedient action.

In A. D. 59, when the disturbance broke out at Pompeii, the Senate did . not want to appear ineffective or arbitrary in dealing with their antigua munia, as they may have appeared in dealing with the earlier row at Puteoli. It is important to remember that at this time Agrippina.had just been removed from the scene, so the Senate still held out the hope of a fresher, more liberal relationship with Nero. To resolve the problem at Pompeii, which Nero had dutifully entrusted to the Senate, to appear firm and decisive, and to send a clear message that it was not about to tolerate annual uprisings in Italian towns, the Senate acted quickly and severely: exiling the leading citizens, dis­ membering the illegal collegia, and banning all gladiatorial shows in Pompeii with the intended purpose of humiliating the city.

What is particularly interesting about this ban is the fact that there is very good evidence that the restriction did not continue for the requisite ten year period. In Notizie degli Scavi di Antichita XV (1939): 308f., M. Dell a Carte published an edictum muneris edendi which were offered pro salute Neronis Claudi Caesaris Aug. Germanici. The games were held March 25th of a year not specified (Y.IIl.K.Mart.), but Della Carte used a previously known inscription {Pro salute Ner. in terr--, restored as terr(aemotu),55 to fix the date as A.D. 62, the year of the Pompeian earthquake.

0 59 A. W. van Buren demonstrated that this date will not do, mainly because 0 the date is only some twenty days after the earthquake at Pompeii and the town would not have had a sufficient period of time to recover and stage games. Van Buren adds:

The ~~isode in question occurred in A.D. 64 [citing Ann. XV. 33-34J: undeterred by an earthquake, the Emperor continued his recitations in the Naples theatre for some days [Suet., Nero 20]; then . • . as a deferred result of the earthquake, the theatre, when empty of auditors, co 11 apsed. Thus the games announced • • . are to be taken as commemorating an event of the year 64 and as held at intervals during succeed­ ing years.56

Whether either van Buren or De 11 a Carte is correct, it-is evident that the ban on the games was lifted before its scheduled expiry date of A.D. 69.57 Not only does the ban appear to have been lifted, but an inscription, CIL IV.3525 {= ILS 6444), which reads iudicis Aug. felic. Puteolos Antium Tegeano Pompeios.

Hae sunt uerae colonia(~), certainly seems to suggest that Pompeii became a Neronian colony after the manner of Puteoli and Antium. 58

The foregoing can su~marised as follows: the city of Pompeii incurred

senatorial and impe al disfavour for a ~isturbance that occurred there in A.D. 59. 7he disfavour was so strong that the status of the town was reduced; to wit, by the banning of gladiatorial contests for a period of ten years. However, by at least A.D. 64, the ban had been rescinded, and further, Pompeii was back in imperial favour to the point that it was accorded the status of Neronian colony. We are prepared to suggest that the reason for this change in imperial status was a direct result of the influence of Poppaea Sabina.

There is good evidence for believing that Poppaea was born in the town

of Pompeii. Inscriptions reveal that the ~amily.owned at least five houses 60 in Pompeii and was very influential there. In addition, Poppaea's father's 0 family, the Ollii, also owned property in the city. 59 Poppaea had supplanted Agrippina as the dominant female influence in the life of the Emperor and, indeed, the Empire. Because she was of an inferior birth to Agrippina, Poppaea could never hope to equal the social status or dignitas of Agrippina. In addition no ancient source suggests that Poppaea had any allies among the im­

perial freedmen, or that prior to her marriage to Nero she.had any oth~r. high-ranking political contacts. What Poppaea could hope for, however, was to approximate Agrippina in the number of honours she received; including the · title of Augusta.

This attempt to equal Agrippina in terms of honours received bears di­ rectly upon our discussion of the change in status of Pompeii. As mentioned above, immediately after Nero was officially'adopted into the Claudian famfly,

Taci tus says that augetur et Agri ppina 'tognomen ·Augusta~~ {Annals XII' 26). This could be interpreted to mean that when Agrippina provided Claudius with a child, she was given the title Augusta. The title was also given to Poppaea after she provided Nero with a child (natam sibi ex Poooaea filiam Nero ultra mortale gaudium accepit appellauitque Augustam data et Poopaeae eadem cgg­ nomento, Ann. XV.23). Tacitus also records that soon after Agrippina became Augusta, in oppidum Vbiorum, in quo genita erat, ueteranos coloniamgue deduci impetrat, cui nomen inditum e uocabulo ·i·pS'ius (Ann. XII.27). It is not unreason­ able, therefore, to suggest that Poppaea, in her ambitious attempt to match

Agrippina in honours, would wish her birthplace~·Pompeii, to be honoured by co1onisation after she had become Augusta. It would have been difficult, of course, for Poppaea to add her cognomen to Pompeii given the circumstances of her social status. She could, however, see that colonisation be undertaken by 61 proxy; that is, Pompeii could be awarded colonial status under the auspices of Nero. This would avoid the possible repercussions that would have resulted c from describing Pompeii with a cognomen of a woman with a less than suitable pedigree. The city of Pompeii would benefit by a return to imperial favour and Poppaea would have the satisfaction of keeping pace with Agrippina in honours accorded.

To recapitulate, then: the outstanding characteristic of Poppaea is her ambition. Tacitus depicts her as a woman who will stop .at nothing to achieve power. This view: of P.oppaea led Tacitus to implicate her in two murders: Agrip­ pina and Octavia. We have seen, however, that whatever her part in the execu­ tion of Octavia, she had nothing to do with the murder of Agrippina. All sources seem to indicate that Poppaea wielded an inordinate amount of power for a woman of her social standing. Although she seemed to have no well placed political allies, Poppaea had considerably more influence than Octavia, although the latter had an ally such as Burrus the Praetorfan Prefect,. As an intimate counsellor of the Princeps, Poppaea used her influence to the maximum extent. She was influential in the granting of political appointments such as in the case of Florus; she was in the position to apply pressure to groups, such as the Christians, for the benefit of other sectors of society; and she was able to exert her influence to lobby on behalf of special interest groups such as the Pompe1ans, for the granting of colonial status to their city.

0 c NOTES

1. PIR 0 62. 2 •. PIR P 627. 3. PIR P 628. 4. Balsdon, Roman Women, p. 124.

5. Ha11ett, Fathers and Daughters, p. 324f., points out that Augustus~ granddaughter as well as his daughter were named Julia. 6. PIR R 121. 7. Stories are told of his arrogance and of the passions of Gaius and Messa11ina for him; cf. Suetonius, Gaius 36, 55; Dio LX.22.iii, 28.111. 8. Hopk ins, 11 The Age of Roman Girls: '1 327. 9. Cassius Dio LXI.ll.iif; P1utarch, Galba 19; Suetonius, Otho 3; Taci- tus, Histories 1.13, Annals XIII.46. -- 10. G. B. Townend, "Traces in Dio Cassius of Cluvius, Aufidtus and Pliny," Hermes LXXXIX (1961): 245 n.l; 246 n.2. 11. G. E. F. Chilver, A Historical Commentary on Tacitus' "Histories" I and II (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), p. 71. 12. Townend, "Traces: 11 245 n. 1.

13. Sa11ust. ~atilina 25. As a passage borrowed by Tacitus see Balsdon, Roman Women, p. 125; syme, Tacitus. p. 353; R. Martin, Tacitus (Berkeley and Los Angeles("University Gf California Press, 1981), p. 168. 14. Syme, Tacitus, p. 353. 15. Tacitus, Ann. XVI:6; Suetonius, Nero 35. Both Suetonius (Nero 29) and Dio (LXII.28.iii;LXIII.l3.·i) show Nero demonstrating his sexual dependence on Poppaea by castrating , a freedman who resembled her, and using him as her substitute; even to the point of going through a marriage ceremony with him. 16. A. w. van Buren, "Pompeif-:JNero--Poppaea," in Studies Presented to David Moore Robinson, vol. II, eds. G. E. Mylanos and D. Raymond (St. Louis: Washington University, 1953), p. 972. 17. Brad1ey, Historical Commentary, p. 202.

62 63 te. See the other inconsistencies indicated by Alexis Dawson, "What­ ever Happened to Lady Agrippina?" CJ LXIV (1969): 253f. c 19. Ibid.: 255. 2a. Admittedly at Ann. XII.46 Tacitus says that Poppaea was feigning (simulans) her love for Nero, but this can not be independently confirmed. Tacitus nowhere .. else gives any indication that Poppaea's love for Nero was less than genuine. 21. Furneaux, Annals, vol. II, p. 306, loc. cit. 22. Rogers, "Heirs and Rivals:" 211; cf Ann. XIII.l9f, 47. 23. Furneaux, Annals, vol. II. p. 232, lac. cit. 24. Aristotle was possibly the first to realise this; cf. Generation of Animals 716a. The fact was even more clearly stated by Lucretius:. atque alias alii complent magis ex aliisque succipiunt aliae pondus magis inque grauescunt. et multae steriles Hymenaeis ante fuerunt pluribus et nactae post sunt tamen unde puellos suscipere et paru possent ditescere dulci. et quibus ante domi fecundae saepe nequissent uxores parere, inuentast illis quoque compar natura, ut possent gnatis munire senectam. De Rerum Natura, IV.l249-1256. 25·. There was, in fact, only one triumph for one grandfather; that of C. Poppaeus Sabinus in A.D. 26 for suppressing Thracian mountain tribesmen (Ann. IV.46). This was, of course, not the full triu~ph which ended for all but emperors during the reign of Augustus, but the ornamenta triumphalia. Tacitus• use of the plural here is interesting. Poppaea certainly would have known her ancestry and the accuracy of the statement, and there is a good chance Nero would have known too, especially since Poppaeus• honours only antedated Nero by some ten years. Tacitus certainly knew; Poppaeus is described in Ann. VI.39 as modicus originis. What seems to be happening here is that Tacitus-is trying to characterize Poppaea as a woman so mnbitious that to reach her goals she would even try to deceive the Princeps by falsifying her pedigree. 2&. The child, of course, would not be legitimate unless Poppaea and Nero· were legally married.

4~. Ann. XIII.20: Nero trepidus et interficiendae matris auidus. 2a. Martin, Tacitus, p. 170. 29. Warmington, Nero, p. 47. 30. Martin, Tacitus, p. 163. 0 64 31.. Michael Kaplan, "Agrippina semper atrox: A Study in Tacitus' Char­ acterization of Women," in Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, vol. 0 I, ed. C. Deroux (Bruxelles: Latomus, 1979), p. 411. 32 •. Ibid. ·33. Furneaux, Annals, vol. II, p. 398, loc. cit. suggests that Poppaea and Tigellinus were part of a type of inner cabinet of advisors in contrast to Nero's regular counsellors on matters of state. The idea seems to find support in Griffin, Nero, pp. ~100f. 34. Livia became Augusta by virtue of her husband's will (Ann. 1.8). Antonia was accorded the title on the accession of her grandson, Gaius {Dio LIX.3.iv). Messallina was refused the title off_ici'ally, however-it does.appea'r with her on some provincial coinage {Dio LX.l2.v)~Agrippina was the first to be called Augusta during her husband's lifetime ~nd·-the first to treat the title as conferring a share in imperial power {Ann. XII.26). The daughter born to Nero and Poppaea tha.t.<:lied in infancy in A.D. 63 was also called Augusta (Ann. XV.23). · ~ '35. Juno: Vergil, Aeneid 1.662; Medea: Valerius Flaccus VI.662 and Quintilian XI.3.lxiii; Eurydice: Statius, Thebais VI.82 {probably spurious); Agia: Thebais XII.222; Theoxena: Livy XL.4.vi. 36. It seems quite unusual to find a Jewish actor. The nakedness and immorality often portrayed on the Roman stage would be contrary to Jewish mor­ ality. E. Mary Smallwood, "The Alleged Jewish Tendencies of Poppaea Sabina, .. JThS n.s. X (1959): 333 thinks this actor may have been an apostate. · 37. Translations from Josephus: The Life, ed. and trans. H. St. J ... Thackeray (Cambridge, Mass: LCL, 1926); Jewish Antiquities, ed. and trans. L~ H. Feldman (Cambridge, Mass.: LCL, 1965). 38. Both Florus and his wife were Greeks and residents of a Greek city. On their appointment Griffin, Nero~:P· 101 remarks 'given the high level of anti- Semetic ling among Greeks under the Principate, the appointment of a resident of a Greek city, married to a Greek wife, was not the most promising idea.' 39. Smallwood, 11 Jewish Tendencies:" 332.

40. Ibid.: 331. 4J.. Philippe Fabia, "Comment Poppee devint imperatrice," B!:!l n.s. XXI (1897): 227 . . 42. Tacitus, Ann XV.38f; Dio LXII.l6f.; Suetonius, Nero 38. · 43. See the bibliography in W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Churchi{Oxford: Blackwell and Mott, 1965}.

44. This conclusion was first proposed by Philippe Fabia, "Le r~gne et la mort de Poppee," RPh n.s. XXII (1898): 336f. and has found its most artie:u-late 65 expression in J. Beaujeau, "L'incendie de Rome et les chretiens," Latomus XLIX {1960): 40-56.

0 45. · ~Jall painting: G. De Petra, Giornale degli scavi di Pompei n.s. 1868-69, pp. l85f.; Graffiti: CIL IV.l293, 1329, 2183. 46. See Keith Hopkins, Sociolo ical Studies in Roman Histor, vol. II, Death and Renewal (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1~83 ·,"pp. ·..:3f. For an assessment of gladiatorial games and their sociological import see Ibid., eh. 3, "Murderous Games," pp. 1-30. 47. Walter 0. Moeller, "The Riot of A.D. 59 at Pompeii," Historia XIX (1970): 92. 48. Ibid.: 93. '49. Byzantium in A.D. 196-7 (Herodian III.6); Alexandria in A.D. 212 (Cassius Dio LXXVII.22.xxiii); and Antioch in A.D. 176 (SHA,.'M.-.Aurel. .XXV.9), A.D. 196, when Septimius Severus reduced it to the status of a village {Hero­ dian III.6) and A.D. 387 (LibantliJs; Or. XtX.20).

· '50. Moeller, 11The ··Riot af Pompeii:-~' .. 92. ·'

'" . - . _·-.·.i:_~::_ ...... :· ' .t. " ·. ' ...-- -. · ... -... ':_ .. .' " ~- • "':•. _::,·~---"'· ~>-· ·;. · -511.~ ~fte :\tie~f':that 'the·.~colleg-ia .iuuenes,was l'ittl~_:·-mo~_·o~!faE_''gn··~s·sociatior _b_f s~hoolbOys _iS.. exp,r~ssed. by_~:s; :L. Mobler~:-''Th~;Ilivenes~_and Roman~.Edu_cat-iof.l, 11 TAPA LXVI f.!- -(1~31) :-, 442~449;~ G.'·cnar.l es·,.;Pi-Card~, '.'Civtfas"-MactaMfana/! ~Kar~. ':' thago VIII {1957): .86f.; and R. MacMullen., Soldier and Civilian· in the Later ~·Raman Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963), p. 175 n.52f.

~52. Talbert, The Senate, p. 393.

53. Ibid., p. 383.

54. ror a discussion of the effect of Nero 1 s speech on the Senate~ see · 1 Griffin, ___IQ, eh. 4, "The Golden Age, ' passim. 55. CIL IV.3822.

~6- van Buren,""Pompeii--Nero--Poppaea," p. 971. SZ. A similar position was expressed to the author in conversation with L. Richardson, Jr., who doubted that the ban lasted more than one or two years; cf. van Buren, Ibid, p. 970; Griffin, Nero, p. 102.

5~. See Appendix. . .59. CIL IV.259, 1499, 6682. R. Syme, 11 Caesar, the Senate and Italy,u PBSR XIV (1938): 7 n.23 believes the ultimate origin of the Ollii to have been Interamna Praetuttianorum in , adducing ILS 5671 and 6562. 0 CHAPTER FOUR

TACITUS AND OCTAVIA AND POPPAEA

Our main source for the Principate of Nero is Tacitus; specifically, Annals XIII-XVI. More importantly for our purposes, it is only from the Annals that anything resembling a composite:portraH of Octavia ·and Poppaea·emerges. In both Cassius Dio and Suetonius these two women appear as little more than appendages to Nero, and do not play a significant role in the narrative other than to illustrate examples of the Princeps' callousness or cruelty. Of course given the male orientation of Roman society and the nature of Roman histori­ ography this limited role for Octavia and Poppaea is not surprising. Wars and .politics were the chief occupations of the educated aristocratic men at Rome, <" while women were generally relegated to the management of social or domestic affairs. 1 It was not that these affairs ~tJere without import in and of them:- .

selves, •. has more that se- matters did not make interesting reading for the male popula:ion whose knowledge of such details, by virtue of their role in

society, wo~ld be limited. Commenting on the general dearth of material about Roman women, M. I. Finley remarked that Cleopatra, the most famous woman in Roman history, was not even a Roman.2

Nero was the central character ~n each of the sources. He would have a particular fascination to the historians beca.use with him (and to a certain ex­ tent, because of him), the Julio-Claudian principate came to an end. The his­ 0 torians quite naturally focused on his character, rather than on those around him. Although his attendants such as Seneca, Burrus, and Tigel1inus make their

66 67 appearances in all three writers, it is only through Tacitus that we are given c more than a fleeting glimpse of Octavia and Poppaea. It is to be regretted that in the extant portions of the Annals we have no similar portrait of Statilia Messallina, Nero's third wife. Perhaps in the missing part of the work she even received a full character sketch such as that of Poppaea (Ann. XIII.45), although such elaborate sketches are rare in the third hexad. 3 How­ ever, it is vain to speculate. Statilia's only appearance in the Annals comes in connection with the death of her husband, M. Vestinus Atticus {cos. A.D. 65), who was executed during the purge after the . In this passage she is described as inter adulteros of Nero (Ann. XV.68}.

To examine Tacitus• treatment of Octavia and Poppaea, it is first nec­ essary to make some general remarks concerning Tacitus• overall treatment of women. Linda W. Rutland says that the most significant characteristic of Tacitus• women in the Annals is that they are 11 Wily and deceitful. 114 She also makes the following important observation:

If we limit our focus for a moment to only those passages in which the words muliebris and muliebriter appear, a pattern of the female psyche presents itself. In a number of instances sufficiently large to appear significant, muliebris/muliebriter qualify words denoting unreason, emotion, and deception. Lub­ ido and cupido appear, ~oth indicating a desire or drive which has no rational control (4.39). Impotentia, lack of self-control and unwillingness to recognize and function within the bounds of limitations, is a favorite, ••• (12.57; 1.4). Fraus (2,71; 11.3) and inlecebrae (14.2) refer to womanly schemes~traps .•• Arrogance (su erbia} and rage (fremere} make their appear­ ance (13.33; 12.64; 5. . Factional strife is commonly, though not exclusively, attributed to female agents, and indeed aemu­ latio muliebris- rivalry, assiduous competition--is .•• a con­ cern of Taci tus. 5

Such a stereotyping of women would leave Tacitus open to a charge of mysogyny were that not to misunderstand the nature of Roman society. Indeed it could c 68 be argued that Tacitus is quite the opposite of a mysogynist; at least Tacitus c recognised that women played a significant part in the unfolding of events, whereas the other writers tend to assign women to rather inconsequential r6les. It is also true that Tacitus preferred women who 11 exhibited the traditional virtues of the Republic; 11 6 to wit, the woman will be married, a benefit to her husband's career both by virtue of her character and pedigree. She will be

chaste and loyal, and the second of these characteristics is especially impor~ tant if her husband is exiled or executed. In Tacitus• mind a woman is entitled to consideration from her husband, but the burden is with the woman to prove herself worthy.?

Concerning Tacitus• characterization of women Syme remarks, 11 For Tacitus virtue in women consists not merely in pudicitia but in constantia and fides ... a As mentioned above, this implies a willingness to remain faithful to her hus­ band even to the point of death if necessary. As if to prove that he believed that there were still virtuous women at Rome, Tacitus• Annals provides no shor­ tage of women ready to die for their husbands. Paxaea, the wife of Pomponius Labeo, opened her veins at the same time as her husband in A.D. 34, as did Sextia to encourage her husband to do likewise (Ann. VI.29). Paulina, Seneca's wife, although she was saved by the intervention of the Princeps, preferred to follow her husband to death (Ann. XV.63). The widow of Rubellius Plautus. An­ tistia Pollitta, perished in a joint suicide with her father-in-law and his mother-in-law (Ann. XVI.ll).

Tacitus had all the class prejudices that can be expected from a member of an imperial race.9 He regarded the mass of plebs as nothing more than cor­ rupt, servile, and superstitious. As with most men of station he detested slaves and freedmen. This contempt for those beneath him could be especially c 69 in evidence if the individuals were women. We may cite the case of the freed­ c woman Epicharis who was implicated in the conspiracy of Piso. Her bravery under torture and her noble death were worthy of comment by Tacitus:

clariore exemplo libertina mulier in tanta necessitate alienos ac prope ignotos protegendo, cum ingenui et uiri et Romani senatoresque intacti tormentis carissima suorum quisque pignorum proderent. (Ann. XV.57).

While it can be argued that Tacitus is commenting as much on the degeneracy of the Roman aristocracy as he is on the constantia of Epicharis, she is still a clarius exemplum. However one may not have thought that Epicharis would re­ ceive such a noble eulogy when she is first introduced. At that point Tacitus makes the rather malicious comment about her: incertum guonam modo sciscitata (negue illi ante ulla rerum honestarum cura fuerat) (Ann. XV.Sl). A similar example is found in the same series of events regarding Milichus, the freedman who betrayed the Pisonian conspiracy to Nero. After the seruilis animus of Milichus had been able to lay aside all thoughts of the former kindnesses of his master and began to dwell on the benefits to be gained by betraying the plot, he took up the counsel of his wife; a.counsel that Tacitus assures us was muliebre ac deterius (Ann. XV.54).

Although Tacitus may be guilty on occasion of slandering individual women on the basis of their gender as in the above cited examples, he nowhere condemns women as a class. Epicharis is a freedwoman, probably foreign and therefore detested (at least intitially, it seems), for those reasons rather than the fact that sbe is a woman. The wife of Milichus was also a freedwoman and the comment that her counsel was muliebre ac deterius is not the same as saying that it was deterius quod muliebris. Along with the nuances attached to the words muliebrts/muliebriter could be added 11 Unmanly, .. or 11 Weak" since 70 this is in effect what women are when compared physi ea lly to men. In this sense the remark that Tacitus is making is more to Milichus than to his wife. That is to say, Milichus followed an unmanly or weak course of action by be­ traying the conspiracy for personal gain.

While we can never hope to know fully what Tacitus thought about women, it is safe to say that he did not despise women.10 Along with those "Repub-

1i can virtues" mentioned above, we can a 1so venture to say that Tacitus prefer­ red his women to stay quiet and remain in the background. When writing about her, Tacitus does not even give his own wife's name (although it was quite probably Julia after her father Cn. Iulius Agricola), nor does he mention her age (Agricola 9). Bearing these facts in mind, we can now examine more closely Tacitus' treatment of Octavia and Poppaea.

Mention has been made earlier of Tacitus' characterization of Octavia and Poppaea. Poppaea is certainly the more fully developed character as well as the less sympathetic and more wicked. Part of the reason for the vividness of the portrait of Poppaea is because, as Syme notes, in this section of the Annals Tacitus "seems to be moving a long way in the direction of drama and the novel."ll This is not, of course, to dismiss Tacitus' Poppaea as a completely fictional creation; that would be to misunderstand the nature of court life under the Caesars. In our discussion of Octavia, we made mention of the intri­ cate nature of the alliances of the ruling house with the Roman aristocracy. Given the difficulties, particularly for a woman, of entering this elite circle without the proper (one might even say extensive) genealogical background, any­ one who managed to do so must either be gifted with extraordinary political skill, or be able to obligate the Princeps in some manner to provide for his or her own advancement. Since politics were not normally the domain of women 71

As far as the preferred womanly virtues, pudicitia, constantia, and fides were concerned, Tacitus saw no evidence of these in Poppaea's history. In the Annals he saw her as an adulteress who cuckolded her husband with Nero who at that time was still married to Octavia, and in general, she was a woman who maritos et adulteros non distinguens (Ann. XIII.45f.). Her character was one that unde utilitas ostenderetur, illuc libidinem transferebat (Ann. XIII.45); hardly an example of constantia. Tacitus saw her dispose of two husbands on her climb up the social ladder, and although Tacitus does not record any in­ stances of Poppaea's unfaithfulness to Nero after their marriage (nor does any pther author), there were no more rungs on the ladder to climb after marriage to the Princeps. To Tacitus, she married for power, not necessarily for love.12

Octavia is much the oooosite. She did not choose her marriage partner ..... as p ea did, but was the ojedient child following ~..ne wishes of her father and step-mother. Nevertheless she remained faithful to ~ero throughout their loveless marriage .• During the proceedings for her divorce from Nero, only a few of Octavia's slave girls could be induced under duress of torture to con- fess that their mistress had been unfaithful, so we can assume that she remained chaste throughout her marriage.l3 Although Tacitus does not use the word con- stantia to describe Octavia's character, it is clear that the word is appropri­ ate. Recounting Octavia's reaction to Nero's murder of her brother Britannicust Tacitus says Octauia guoque, guamuis rudibus annis, dolorem caritatem, omnis adfectus abscondere didicerat (Ann. XIII.l6}. Octavia therefore becomes an 72 admirable, if somewhat pathetic character because she displays all three 0 Tacitean virtues: pudicitia, constantia, and fides while her rival Poppaea dis­ played none.

While Octavia is a pathetic creature, .. and there are parallels for her with other women in the Annals,l4 Poppaea comes off as particularly evil. Even Agrippina becomes a sympathetic character in comparison as Tacitus blames her death partially on Poppaea (Ann. XIV.l-10). Agrippina's death as we have noted before is highly dramatic. At her death Agrippina is left completely alone, deserted by her servants after being cruelly betrayed by her son. While Agrip­ pina seems hardly worth a tear at first with her seduction or Claudius, her schemes to put Nero on the throne, and her eventual murder of her husband~ 5 at the end of her life Agrippina is characterized as the protector of Octavia, and the sole restraint checking Nero's libidines (Ann. XIV.l3). The same type of compassion is not demonstrated for Poppaea. Even though she is brutally kicked to death while pregnant by her irascible husband her death receives no prolonged description or eulogy (Ann. XVI.6). From what we know, Poppaea was not deserted by everyone when she died, nor was her death calculated. She was accorded soecial honours after her death, including deification, and her death caused great grtef to NeroJ 6 This last result is always a reason for 7 cynical rejoicing in Tacitus}

While Poppaea did lack the virtues that Tacitus most highly approved in a woman, we have seen that she did approximate Agrippina in terms of the influ­ ence that she had over the Princeps. What she did not have, however, was either the dignitas or the self-endowed auctoritas of Agrippina. The unique pedigree of the mother of Nero is noticed by Tacitus: 0 73 quam imperatore genitam, sororem eius qui rerum potitus sit et coniugem et matrem fuisse, unicum ad hunc diem exemplum est (Ann. XII.42).

Certainly the daughter of a disgraced ex- and granddaughter of a nouus

homo, (through whom she received her nobility},could never match a pedigree such as that of Agrippina; more particularly, she should not try. We have seen above that Tacitus disparaged the lower classes, and whatever the faults of AgrippiDa may have been, she did hold a unique status by virtue of her birth of which Poppaea was unworthy.

There may be another reason that Poppaea comes in for the special odium of Tacitus. This reason is discovered in passing notices given to Poppaea by two of Tacitus' contemporaries: the Elder Pliny and Juvenal. Pliny mentions Poppaea four times. The first is in connection with Pliny's account of the use of milk:

Poppaea Eerte'Dom:iti 'Neronis coniux_quingentas per omnia secum fetas trahens balnearum etiam solio totum corpus illo lacte macerabat, extendi quoque cutem ere dens (f!li XI. 238).

Pliny later confirms that this belief of Poppaea's n become popularly ac- cepted:

Cutem in facie erugari et tenerescere candore lacte asinino putant, notumque est quasdam cottidie septies genas custodito numero fouere. Poppaea hoc Neronis principis instituit, bal­ nearum quoque solia sic temperans, ob hoc asinarum gregibus earn comitantibus (NH XXVIII.l83).

While discussing Arabia and its production of incense Pliny writes: periti rerum adseuerant non ferre tantum annuo fetu guantum Nero princeps nouissimo Poppaeae suae die concremauerit {NH XII.83). Pliny's final mention of Poppaea is during a discussion about amber: 73 quam imperatore genitam, sororem eius qui rerum potitus sit et coniugem et matrem fuisse, unicum ad hunc diem exemplum c est. (Ann. XII.42).

Certainly the daughter of a disgraced ex-quaestor and granddaughter of a ~ homo, through whom she received her nobility could never match a pedigree such as that of Agrippina; more particularly, she should not try. We have seen above that Tacitus disparaged the lower classes, and whatever the faults of Agrippina may have been, she did hold a unique status by virtue of her birth of which Poppaea was unworthy.

There may be another reason that Poppaea comes in for the special odium of Tacitus. This reason is discovered in passing notices given to Poppaea by two of Tacitus' contemporaries: the Elder Pliny and Juvenal. Pliny mentions Poppaea four times. The first is in connection with Pliny's account of the use of milk:

Poppaea certe Dom1t1 Neronis coniux_qu1ngentas per omnia secum fetas trahens balnearum etiam solio totum corpus illo lacte macerabat, extendi quoque cutem credens. {NH XI.238).

Pliny later confirms that this belief of Poppaea's had become popularly ac­ cepted:

Cutem in facie erugari et tenerescere candore lacte asinino putant, notumque est quasdam cottidie septies genas custodito numero fouere. Poppaea hoc Neronis principis instituit, bal­ nearum quoque solia sic temperans, ob hoc asinarum gregibus eam comitantibus. (NH XXVIII.l83).

While discussing Arabia and its production of incense Pliny writes: periti rerum adseuerant non ferre tantum annuo fetu quantum Nero princeps nouissimo Poppaeae suae die concremauerit (NH XII.83). Pliny•s final mention of Poppaea is during a discussion about amber: 0 74 in omnibus denique aliis uitiis aut ostentatio aut usus placet: in sucinis sola deliciarum conscientia. Domitius Nero in cet­ eris uitae suae portentis capillos quoque Poppaeae coniugis 0 suae in hoc nomen adoptauerat quodam etiam carmine sucinos ap­ pellando, quoniam nullis uitiis desunt pretiosa nomina; ex eo tertius quidam hie colas coepit expeti matronis. (NH XXXVII.SO).

The reference to Poppaea in Juvenal is a little more oblique but im­ portant nevertheless because it show Poppaea's name being used adjectivally:

Nil non permittit mulier sibi, turpe putat nil, cum uirides gemmas collo circumdedit et cum auribus extentis magnos commisit elenchos; intolerabilius nihil est quam femina.diues. interea foeda aspectu ridendaque multo pane tumet facies aut pinguia Poppaeana spirat, et hinc miseri uiscantur labra mariti: (Sat. VI.457-463).

The above references clearly indicate that Poppaea's use of cosemtics was well known. While it may be difficult to prove that at this early date her name had passed into common parlance as an adjective, 1t iS obvious that Juvenal felt that no ambiguity would arise from its usage. The references from Pliny indicate that Poppaea was an innovator in cosmetics on two fronts: bath­ ing in milk, and inspiring women to colour their hair. The above citations have certain implications in viewing the w1fe.af tbe Princeps as a fir.st cen­ tury "ffrst lady of fashion" and therefore a cult figure and rOle model for other women at Rome,.but:this must be left for another time.

Tacitus nowhere in the Annals has an explicit condemnation of the use of cosmetics. ·Two things· are clear about cosmetics in whatever age they are used: they cost money and they are intended (in usually a posi.the sense) to draw attention to the individual using them. The former use would be consider­

ed a participa~ion in luxuria by Tacitus, and the latter use would go against Tacitus' belief that a woman should remain in the background. In the case of c 75 Poppaea she not only was a participant in the use of cosmetics, but an inno­ c vator as well. This was independent of any association with Nero, and as Sarah Pomeroy points out, "whatever women did independent of men was futile and potentially irritating to men."18

As we have seen Octavia was a pathetic nonentity who, although in Tac­ itus• mind she had the necessary virtues as well as being a credit to her hus­ band in terms of her lineage, kept her place and exhibited grace and decorum even unto death. Poppaea was a politically ambitious woman who influenced her husband•s decisions (seldom for the good of the State) and functioned indepen­ dently of any male from her birth to her death. As such she came in for special

odium from Tacitus who, while recognising that women could play a ~le in pol­ itics, was still a traditional Roman in outlook. As Pomeroy again notes, 11 de­ spite the long tradition of Roman women playing a r61e in politics, there re­ mained a feeling traceable back to Homer that women and men should have dis­ tinct roles in society.ul9 0 NOTES

1. Lefkowitz and Fant, Women's Life, p. xv. 2. M. I. Finley, "The Silent Women of Rome, 11 Horizon VII {1965): 57. 3. Syme, Tacitus, p. 353. 4. Linda W. Rutland, "Women as Makers of Kings in Tacitus' Annals, .. CW LXXII {1978): 17. 5. Ibid.: 15f. 6. Barry Baldwin, "Women in Tacitus, 11 Prudentia IV (1972): 97. 7. Ibid.: 83. 8. Syme, Tacitus, p. 535 n.2. 9. Ibid., pp. 530f. 10. Baldwin, 11 Women in Tacitus:" 84-. 11. Ronald Syme, 11 Princesses and Others in Tacitus, 11 §...!._E. 2nd ser. XXVIII (1981): 41. 12. In this context it is worthwhile. remembering that Poppaea was at least six years older than Nero and a year older than Otho as well. Hopkins, "The Age of Roman Girls: 11 327, points out that the nonn for a woman was that "at an early age she married a man considerably older than herself, a man whom she did not choose ... 13. Suetonius, Nero 35, says that at the examination of the charge per­ negantibus cuntis, but this is probably an exaggeration; cf. Ann. XIV.60; Bradley, Historical Commentary, p. 211. 14. For example Pollitta, Ann. XVI.lOf.; Servilia, Ann. XVI.30f. -· 15. Ann. XII.3, cf. XII.66. Compare this to the treatment of Agrippina after her death: cremata ne ue dum Nero rerum po-

17. For example: Ann. XIV.49; XV.67; XVI.l9f.

76 77 18. Pomeroy, GWWS, p. 182. 19. Ibid. , p. 185.

0 0 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

Relying mainly on the evidence provided by Tacitus, Octavia and Poppaea emerge as two completely different women. Poppaea was ambitious, to a large extent in control of her own destiny, and able to exert her influence over Nero. Octavia was weak, politically na,ve, and little, if any influence on the actions of Nero. The one woman Nero loved, the other he detested.

Almost from her birth, Octavia was used as a dynastic tool to perpetuate the Julio-Claudian regime. First as the betrothed of L. Silanus, then later as the wife of Nero, she was obedient to the will of her father as he h1mself obeyed the wishes of Agrippina. Despite her position as the daughter of the Emperor Claudius, her impressive pedigree, popular support of the masses, an ally in the Praetorian Prefect, and support of the Guards themselves, Octavia was unable to utilise this power and control her own destiny.

Poppaea was quite the opposite. From a less impressive pedigree than Octavia she advanced herself to the rank of Augusta and was able to use her influence over the Princeps on behalf of her friends and interests. She ac­ complished this relying solely on her ambition and, to a certain extent, using her well-renown beauty as a charm to secure Nero•s interest. She managed her social advancement without any allies among the imperial freedmen, nor w1th any

powerful political sympathizers in the Senate. She seemed to be an unoffic~al patron of her native Pompeii and a close counsellor of the Princeps on political

0 78 79 matters. The ambition she required to attain such heights of power were the antithesis of the apparent docility of Octavia. Perhaps this, and the fact that she was several years alder than Nero were her attractions to him. History is silent on the matter, but we are free to speculate, particularly in the. case of Nero whose childhood was under the influence of his powerful and ag­ gressive mother Agrippina, whose every move, to the point of murdering her hus­ band and Princeps, were devised to secure the throne for Nero.

In a way these two women typify two types of women of the early Empire. Octavia harkened back to the old Republican type of woman: docile, obedient and chaste; the sort of woman a husband would eulogise on a tombstone as Damum seruauit. lanam fecit: "She kept up her household; she made wool."l Her per­ verse and licentious husband did not appreciate these virtues, however, and

hated her from the beginning of their marriage. Poppaea, on the other hand, ~

~as the type of woman, much like Fulvia, ~ho modern writers are prone to say .c· indicate an 11 emancipation 11 of wamen.2 Independent, ambitious, free with her

sexual favours if it would lead to her own advancement, Poppaea's role as con-

sort of r~ero and innov:!tor of aids t·J beauty (by :thicr· a '.·toman could control a

~an), 8ade her a candidate as the type of woman Augus S 1 social legislation

1 1·1as design to control .. V

Tacitus was a Senator who decried the morals of the Roman aristocracy. He longed for the virtues of the old Republic, particularly but not uniquely when they concerned the deportment of women. This world view led him to regard the ambition demonstrated by Poppaea as excessive and beyond the established norm for women. This negative view of Poppaea even leads Tacitus to implicate er­ raneously her in the murder of Agrippina. Tacitus is also suspicious of Pop­ paea•s beauty, and accords her no praise in any of her appearances in the Annals, 80 save the first. Octavia, on the other hand, possesses all the desired Repub­ c lican virtues. To this end she receives a particularly sympathetic treatment from Tacitus as he considers her exile as the most pitiable of the imperial period. He even attempts to conceal her true age to heighten sympathy for her while increasing odium for Nero. The result of this biased view of Tacitus is that a weak and ineffective woman comes off as an object of pity, while a strong and assertive woman comes off as evil. The truth of the matter lies somewhere in between. The lot of Octavia was no worse than her contemporary peers, and might have been improved if she had had the initiative and political astuteness to put her resources to use. Poppaea was able to utilise her natural talents and with considerably less resources at hand, rise above her station. This resulted in her suffering the same negative press that other assertive women such as Cleopatra, Livia, and Agrippina endured because of the inability of the first century male mind to cope with women who strove for something loftier than the epitaph Domum seruauit. Lanam fecit.

0 0 NOTES

1. ILS 8403. 2. Cf. Syme, RR, p. 405; Ba lsdon·; Roman Woman, p. 45f. 3. Syme, RR, p. 414.

0 81 APPENDIX: POMPEII

Colonia Veneria Cornelia Pompeianorum was established as a Roman colony by the Dictator Sulla about 80 B.C. From that time attempts were made to con­ vert the essentially Oscan speaking local population to Latin speaking, and integrate them into the colony by such means as changing the names of the magis­ trates and city measurements from Oscan ones to Latin ones.l Pompeii has been known as a Neronian colony only since 1897. At that date a red letter inscrip­ tion was found on the facade of the Casa dei Vettii, a house located on a quiet narrow street.2 The inscription reads, Judicis Aug. felic. Puteolos Antium

Tegeano Pompeios. Hae sunt uerae colonia(~). Another nearby inscription reads Judicis Augusti p. p. et Poppaeae Aug. feliciter~ 3 thereby proving that Augustus refers to Nero. 4

Ann. XIV.27 says that Puteol1 was given the rights of a colony and the cognomen of Nero and the city appears calling itself Colonia Claudia Neronensis Puteoli;5 this despite the fact that the towo:w~s first colonised in 194 B.C. · {Livy XXXII.29.fii), and poss,bly again by Augustus. 6 The same passage in Tacitus mentions that contingents of army veterans were settled in Antium and Tegeanum, but does not indicate that there was a name change at either place, nor is there any other record indicating a change. Antium was where Nero was born {Suetonius, Nero 6) and was the earliest of the citizen colonies, dating from 338 B.C. 7 The The location of Tegeanum is unknown.

It would appear from the evidence that Pompeii received a settlement of 0 83 veterans as one of the special benefits accorded it after its elevation to 0 colonial status. This would be in line with the benefits accorded.the other cities mentioned in the inscription. It apparently, from all sources available to us, did not receive the Neronian cognomen.

There seemed to be a change in the status of colonies taking place in the first century. Some twenty Italian towns were recolonised after the time of Augustus with much of this recolonisation being attributed to Nero.8 The title of colonia carried with it a great deal of prestige9 and even towns that were Roman municipia sought the change in status to colonia although the two for administrative purposes were virtually indistinguishable.10 The titular designation of colonia brought with it a special prestige when conferred by the Emperor. It may be that Pompeii preferred the designation of municipium.before its elevation by Nero. Another Italian town, Praeneste, successfully petitioned Tiberius for a reversion in status from colonia to municipium because. it hattd its colonial status since it had been granted by Sulla.11 Pompeii may have felt the same way. c NOTES

1. G. Michael Woloch, ed., Roman Cities (Madison, WSC.: University of Wisconson Press, 1983), p. 229. 2. CIL IV.3525 {ILS 6444). 3. CIL IV.3726; similarly, 1074. 4. Henderson, Nero, p. 465; see also, A. Sogliano, 11 Colonie Neroniane, 11 RAL ser.S VI (1897): 3~ 5. CIL IV.2152. 6. E. T. Salmon, Roman Colonization under the Republic (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornel University Press, 1970), p. 138; cf. Res Gestae Div1 Augusti 28.2. 7. Salmon, Roman Colonization, pp. 71, 152. 8. Ibid., pp. 161-163. Of the twenty-two recolonisations listed by Salmon, Nero is accorded six and Augustus etght although four of these are ques­ tionable. 9. Aulus Gellius XVI.l3.ix. 10. Salmon, Roman Colonization, p. 153. 11. Aulus Gellius XVI.l3.v.

84 0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ancient Sources: Texts, Commentaries, Translations

LCL represents Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press.

ARISTOTLE. Generation of Animals. Edited and translated by A. L. Peck. Cambridge, Mass.: LCL, 1943. BRUNT, P.A., and MOORE, J. M., eds. Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967. CASSIUS 010. Dio's Roman History. Edited and translated by E. Cary. Cambridge, Mass.: LCL, 1914-27. OEGRASSI, A., ed. I fasti consolari dell' impero Romano. Rome: Edizioni Di Storia E Letteratura, 1952. EHRENBERG, V., and JONES, A. H. M., eds. Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius. 2nd. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955; reprinted., 1979.

FURNEAUX, H., ed. The Annals of Tacitus. 2 vols. 2nd ed. Revised by H. F~ . Pelham and C. D. Fisher. Oxford: Oxford University Press, vol.:I,-1896; vol.·n,·l901; repdnt.ed.,.vol..I, 1982; vol. II, 1979. GAIUS. Gaii Institutionum Iuris Civilis Commentarii uatuor. Edited and trans- 1ated by E. Poste. Oxford: C areridon .Pre-ss:~ 1871. ------. The Institutes of Gaius. 2 vols. Edited with translation and com­ mentary by F. de Zulueta. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953; reprinted., 1963. JOSEPHUS. The Life. Edited and translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Cambridge, Mass.: LCL, 1926.

------. Jewish Antiquities .. Bo~ks XVIII-XX1I edited and translated by L. , H~ Fe l.drilaa. Can~bri dge, Mass. : LCL, 1965.

JUVENAL. Juvenal and Persius. Edited and translated by G. G. Ramsay. Cam~ bridge, Mass.: LCL, 1918. LUCIAN. Lucian. Vol. VIII edited and translated by M. D. Macleod. Cambridge, Mass.: LCL, 1979.

85 86 LUCRETIUS. De rerum natura·. Edited and translated oy W. H. D. Rouse. Revised by M. F.• Sinith.~ Cambridge, Mass.: LCL, 1975. 0 PLINIVS MAIOR. Natural History. Books VIII-XV edited and translated by H. Rackham. Cambridge, Mass.: LCL (Vols. III-IV), 1940-52. ------. Natural History. Books XXVIII-XXXII edited and translated by W. H. S. Jones. Cambridge, Mass.: LCL, 1963. ------. Natural History. Books XXXVI-XXXVII edited and translated by D. E. Eichho1z. Cambridge, Mass.: LCL, 1962. PLINIVS MINOR. Letters and Panegyricus. Edited and translated by B. Radice. Cambridge, Mass.: LCL, 1969; reprinted., 1976.

PLUTARCH. Les vies parctll!les. 15. vols. Parts: Bud!, 1972~79. Tome XV.: Artaxerxe; Aratos; Galba; Othon, texte !tabli et traduit par R. Flaceliere et E. Chambry. SENECA. Seneca's Tragedies. Edited and translated by F. J. Miller. Cambridge, Mass.: LCL, 1917. ------. Four Tragedie-s. arid Octav1a. ·translated with an introduction by £. F. Watling. Barmondswbrth: Pengufn.Books, 1966. SMALLWOOO, E. M., ed. Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius,.Claudius, and Nero. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. SUETONIUS. De uita Caesarum libri. Edited by M. Ihm. Stuttgart: Bibliotheca Teubneriana, 1908; reprinted., 1978. ------. Suetoni us. Tran!l ated ·and edited' b,y.'J. ·C.· Ro Tfe. _Cambrf dge, Mass.: LCL, ·1913; re vi sed,.am:l reprinted., l95L ------. · Suetonius' Nero. Text, with fntroduction and notes by B. H. Warm­ ington. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1977. ------. . Translated by R. Graves. Harmondsworth: Pen­ gu:i~ .Books,·]g57: ,·.· TACITUS. Agr1cola. Edited by R. M. Og11vie and I. Richmond. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967. ------. The Agricola and the Germania. Translated with an introduction by H. Mattingly. -·Revised by s. A. Handford. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1970; reprinted., 1982. ------. Annales. Edited by C. D. Fisher. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906.

------. Annales. Texte ~tabli et traduit par P.. Wuilleumier. Paris: Bud~, 1978. 87 ------. Annals. Edited and translated by J. Jackson. Cambridge, Mass.: Lt:L, 1931; reprint ed., 1981. 0 ------. The Annals of Tacitus Book XIV. Edited with introduction and notes by E. C. Woodcock. London: Methuen and Co., 1939. ------. Tacitus Annals XV. Edited by N. P. Miller. Basingstoke and London: MacMillan Education Ltd., 1973. ------. The Annals of Imperial Rome. Translated with an introduction by M. Grant. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1956; reprinted and revised ed., 1972. ------. Historiarum libri. Edited by C. D. Fisher. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910. ------. The Histories of Tacitus. Edited and translated by C. H. Moore. Cambridge, Mass.: LCL, 1925; reprinted., 1980. ------. Histories. Translated by K. Wellesley. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1964. ------. Complete Works of Tacitus. Translated by A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb. Edited by M. Hadas. New York: Random House, 1942. VELLEIUS PATERCULUS. Velleius Paterculus. Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Edited and translated by F. W. Shipley. Cambridge, Mass.: LCL, 1924.

Modern Sources

The titles of periodicals are, for the most part, abbreviated as in L'Ann!e Philologigue.

ANOREAU, J. "Le tremblement de terre de Pomp!i (62 ap. J.-C.)." Annales XXVIII (1973): 364-395. BALDWIN, B. "Women in Tacitus." Prudent1a IV (1972): 83-101. BALSDON, J. P. V. D. Roman Women. Their History and Habits .. New York: J. Day Co., 1963; reprinted., New York: Barnes and Noble, 1983. BARNES, T. D. "The Date of the Octavia." Museum Helveticum XXXIX (1982): 215- 217. BEAUJEAU, J. "L'incendie de Rome en 64 et les chr!tiens." Latomus XLIX (1960): 40-56. BERANGER, J. "L'her!dit! du principate. Note sur la transmission du pouvoir imperial aux deux premiers siec1es." REL XVII (1939): 171-187. 0 88 BOND, R. P. 11 Anthfem1ni.sm in Juvenal and Cato. 11 In Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, vol. I, pp. 418-447. Edited by C. Deroux. Bruxelles: 0 Latomus, 1979. BRADLEY, K. R. Suetonius' 11 Life of Nero:u An Historical Commentary. Bruxelles: latomus, 1978. BUREN, A. W., van. "Gnaeus Alleius Nigidius Maius of Pompeii. 11 AJPh LXVIII (1947): 382-393. -

11 11 ------. Pompeii--Nero--Poppaea. In Studies Presented to David Moore Robinson, vol. II, pp. 970-974. Edited by G. E. Mylonas and D. Raymond. St. Louis, Mo.: Washington University, 1953. CARNEY, T. F. "Prosopography: Payoffs and Pitfalls. 11 Phoenix XXVII {1973): 156-179. CASTREN, P. Ordo Popu1usque Pomeeianus. Polity and Society in Roman Pompeii. Rome: Bardi Editore, 1975. CHILVER, G. E. F. A Historical Commentary on Tacitus' 11 Histories" I and II. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979. CORBETT, P. E. The Roman Law of Marriage. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930; re­ print ed., 1969. CROOK, J. A. Consilium Principis. Imperial Councils and Counsellors from Augustus to Diocletion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955. ------. law and Life of Rome. 2nd ed. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1978. D'ARMS, J. H. Romans on the Bay of Naples. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer­ sity Press, 1970. ------. uracitus' Annals XIII.48 and a New Inscription from Puteoli." In The Ancient Historian and His Materials, pp. 155-166. Edited by B. Levick. Trawbridge and Esher: Redwood Born Ltd., 1975. DAWSON, A. 11 Whatever Happened to Lady Agrippina? 11 CJ LXIV (1969): 253-267.

FABIA, P. ''L'adultlre de N~ron et de Popp~e." RPh n.s. XX (1896): 12-22.

11 11 ------. Comment Popp'e devint imp,ratrice. RPh n.s. XXI (1897): 221-239.

11 ------. Le r~gne et la mort de Popp~e." Rph n.s. XXII (1898): 333-345. FINLEY, M. I. "The Silent Women of Rome." Horizon VII (1965): 57-64; reprinted in Aspects of Antiquity: Discoveries and Controversies, pp. 129-142. Edited-by M·. I .. :Finley. London: Chatto and Windus, 1968. FRANKLIN, J. L. "Notes on Pompeian Prosopography." PP XXXIV (1979): 405-416. c 89 ------. Pompeii: The Electoral Programmata. Rome: American Academy in Rome, Papers and Monographs XXVIII, 1980. FRIEOLANDER, L. Roman Life and Manners under the Early Empire. 7th ed. Translated by L. A. Magnus. 4 vols. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. I 1907. GALLIVAN, P. A. 11 Suetonius and Chronology in the De vita Neronis." Historia XXIII (1974): 297-318. ------. "Confusion Concerning the Age of Octavia. 11 Latomus XXXIII (1974): 116-117.

GARNSEV, P. Social Status and Legal Priv~lege in the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970. GARSON, R. W. 11 The Pseudo-Senecan Octavia. A Plea for Nero?" Latomus XXXIV . (1975): 754-756. GILL, C. 11 The Question of Character-Development: Plutarch and Tacitus." fQ. n•. s •. XXXII I- (1983): 4.69-487. GRANT, M. Nero. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1970. GRIFFIN, M. T. Nero: The End of A Dynasty. New Haven and London: Vale Univer­ sity Press, 1984. HALLETT, J. P. 11 The Role of Women in Roman Elegy: Counter-Cultural Feminism." Arethusa VI (1973): 103-124.

------. Fathers and Oau~hters in Roman Society. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, l98 • HEINZ, K. Das Bi1d Kaiser Neros bei Seneca, Tacitus. Sueton und Cassius Dio. Biel: Graphische Anstalt Schueler AG, 1948. HENDERSON, B. W. The Life and Principate of the Emperor Nero. London: Methuen and eo. , 1903. HERINGTON, C. J. 11 0ctavia Praetexta: A Survey. 11 Ql.n.s. XI (1961): 18-30. HOPKINS, M. K. "The Age of Roman Girls at Marriage. 11 Population Studies XVIII (1965): 309-327.

------. Sociological·Studies in Roman Histor~. Vol II: Death and Renewal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 198 • KAPLAN, M. "Agrippina semper atrox: A Study in Tacitus' Characterization of Women. 11 In Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, vol I, pp . . 410-417. Edited by C. Deroux. Bruxe11es: Latomus, 1979. LEFKOWITZ, M. R., and FANT, M. B., eds. Women's life in Greece and Rome. Balti­ c more, Mld.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982. 90 LEON, H. J. The Jews of . Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of A~erica, 1960. c MACOOWALL, 0. w. The Western Coinage of Nero. New York: American Numismatic Society, 1979 MACMULLEN, R. Roman Social Relations. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1974. ------. "Women in Public in the Roman Empire. 11 Historia XXIX (1980): 208- 218. MARTIN, R. Tacitus. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1981. MILLAR, F. A Study in Cassius Dio. 0Kford: Clarendon Press, 1964. ------. The Emperor in the Roman World. London: Duckworth, 1977. MILLER, N. P. 11 Dramatic Speech in Tacitus." AJPh LXXXV (1964): 279-296. MOELLER, W. 0. "The Riot of A.D. 59 at Pompeii." Historia XIX (1970): 88-95. NICHOLAS, B. An Introduction to Roman Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962. POMEROY, S. B. Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves. New York: Schocken Books, 1975.

RICHLIN, A. E. 11 Approaches to the Sources of Adultery at Rome. 11 Womens Studies VIII (1981): 226-250.

11 11 ------. Invective Against Women in Roman Satire. Arethusa XVII {1984): 67-80. ROGERS, R. S. 11 Heirs and Rivals to Nero. 11 TAPA LXXXVI (1955): 190-212. RUTLANO, l. W. "Women as Makers of Kings in Tacitus' Annals. 11 CW LXXII (1978): 15-29.

STE. CROIX, G. E. M., de. The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World. London: Duckworth, 1982. SALLER, R. P. Personal Patronism under the Early Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. SALMON, E. T. Roman Colonization under the Republic. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1970. SCHULTZ, F. Classical: Roman. taw. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951.

SCOTI, R. T. "The Tect of Annals XIV~60-61 and Octavia." CJ LXXVIII (1982): 39-43. c 91

SMALLWOOD, E. M. "The Alleged Jewish Tendencies of Poppaea Sabina." JThS n.s. X (1959): 329-335. c SOGLIANO, A. "Colonie Neroniane." RAL ser. 5 VI (1897): .389:..395.

STONE, L. 11 Prosopography." Daeda 1us C ( 1971): 46-79 • . Reprinted ·1n. Histori ea 1 Studies Today, pp. 107-140. Edited by F. Gilbert and S. R. Graubara. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1972. SYME, R. 11 Caesar, the Senate and Italy." PBSR XIV {1938): 1-31. Reprinted in Roman Papers, vo 1. I, pp. 88-1 .19. · Edited .by E. Badi an. Oxford: Cl ar- . en don Press , , 1979. . ------. The Roman Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1939; re- print ed., 1979. ------. Tacitus. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958. ------. Ten Studies in Tacitus. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970. ------. Some Arval Brethren. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980.

11 ------. Princesses and Others in Tacitus." u..Ji 2nd ser. XXVIII (1981): 40-52. TALBERT, R. J. A. The Senate of Imperial Rome. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984. TOWNEND, G. B. "Traces in Dio Cassius of Cluvius, Aufidius and Pliny." Hermes LXXXIX {1961): 227-248. TRAUB, H. W. "Tacitus• Use of Ferocia." TAPA LXXXIV (1953): 250-261. TREGGIARI, S. "Consent to Roman Marriage: Some Aspects of Law and Reality.u Classical Views XXVI n.s. I (1982): 34-44.

WALTER, G. N~ron. Paris: Libraire Hachette, 1955. WALKER, B. The ."Annals" of Taettus. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1952 •.. WARMINGTON, B. H. Nero: Reality and Legend. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1969. -· WEAVER, P. R. C. Familia Caesaris. A Social Study of Imperial Freedmen and Slaves. London: Cambridge University Press, 1972. WILKES, J. "Julio-Claudian Historians ... CW XLV (1972): 177-203. WOLOCH, G. M., ed. Roman Cities. Madison, WSC.: Yniversity of Wisconson Press, 1983.