<<

Disability and Ability in the Accounts of the

A thesis submitted

To State University in partial

Fulfillment of the requirements for the

Degree of Master of Arts

by

Amanda Whitacre

August, 2018

© Copyright by Amanda Whitacre

All rights reserved Thesis written by

Amanda Joree Whitacre

B.A., Kent State University, 2016

B.A., Kent State University, 2016

M.A., Kent State University, 2018

Approved by

Jennifer Larson____, Advisor

Keiran Dunne_____, Chair, Department of Modern and Classical Language Studies

James L. Blank____, Dean College of the Arts and Sciences Table of Contents

Table of Contents ...... iii

Acknowledgments...... iv

Introduction ...... 1

Seneca’s ...... 6

Claudius’ Disability in Early Life ...... 29

Hiding the Disability ...... 39

Claudius’ Physical Description and Physiognomy ...... 44

Reception of Claudius’ Disability in Later Life ...... 52

Dio’s Roman History ...... 59

Conclusions ...... 72

Bibliography ...... 79

iii Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dr. Larson for helping to make this project possible, as well as the rest of the Kent State University Classics faculty for the knowledge they passed on to me. I would also like to thank my family and all those who supported me in this project and in life.

“I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” Philippians 4:13 (NKJV)

iv Introduction

Tiberius Claudius , better known as Claudius, belonged to the Julio-Claudian and was the fourth Emperor of . Although he was not as glorified as his great- uncle Augustus or as notorious as his successor, , Claudius did have his rightful place in history. During his reign, he handled riots among the Jews in .

His correspondence on the riots will be used in this thesis. He also finished building the Aqua

Claudia, the aqueduct started by his predecessor , and perhaps his best known accomplishment is the expansion of the to Britain when he invaded in A.D. 43. Despite these accomplishments as well as others, Claudius has been misunderstood by ancient and modern observers because of the criticism he received in his lifetime and after.

The point of criticism which is the focus of this thesis is the fact that Claudius had a physical disability. Of course, Claudius’ disability was not the only part of who he was, nor is it the sole source for the criticism. Claudius has been criticized for his personality traits including his gluttony, gambling habits and submission to his social inferiors, but it has been argued that these traits stem from his disability. Ernestine F. Leon discusses that Claudius’ dice playing

( Lives 33.2) may have developed from the fact that Claudius spent a lot of time in solitude as a child and used dice playing as a past time as well as a way to develop his fine motor skills in order that he would be able to participate in the activity with others. Additionally, Leon connects Claudius’ indulgence in food (Suetonius Lives 33.1) with his disability on a psychological level by explaining that over eating was a way for Claudius to receive satisfaction

1 which compensated for his social maladjustment or unhappiness.1 The disability was a part of

Claudius which he could not change and therefore affected every aspect of his life. However, as I attempt to discuss in this thesis, Claudius’ disability was made more apparent when there was a question of his leadership abilities.

Although retroactive diagnosis is impossible based on historical evidence alone, there have been explanations of what a diagnosis for Claudius’ condition could have been, based on the symptoms in the descriptions.2 Based on the general nature of Claudius’ symptoms (atypical gait, uncontrolled movements and speech impediment) post-polio syndrome is a possible diagnosis, also referred to infantile paralysis, was the accepted theory around the time of World

War Two.3 More recently the two conditions associated with Claudius’ symptoms are cerebral palsy (CP) and dystonia. These conditions are caused by trauma to the brain before or at birth.

Symptoms of these conditions include a lack of motor control, clinical spasticity, muscle weakness, slowness in speech and an appearance of a slow intellect. Dystonia also causes twisting and repetitive movements and is heightened by stress. 4 A less popular theory is

Tourette’s syndrome, a condition in which an individual both motor and vocal tics.5 Transverse myelitis is yet another possibility, given that the disorder can be caused by an infection, which could be easily picked up in the unsanitary conditions of the ancient world. Transverse myelitis is an inflammation of the spinal cord which causes weakness in the arms and legs, pain, sensory

1 Leon 1948, 85. 2 Graumann 2013. In this article, Graumann discusses how retrospective diagnosis is problematic due to the vocabulary of the ancient language as well as the descripition are found in non-medical sources, such as , which are exaggerated. The discussion focused on the descriptions of hermaphrodites in antiquity. 3 Scramuzza 1940, 35. 4 CP: Leon 1948; Levick, 1990, 14. Dystonia: Rice 2000; Laes 2013, 164. 5 Murad 2010.

2 alterations as well as bowel and bladder dysfunction.6 The symptoms of transverse myelitis can also diminish over time, just as Claudius’ appear to do as recorded in Suetonius Lives 5.317.

Even though the purpose of this thesis is not to determine what Claudius’ condition was, it is important to recognize that his symptoms reflect actual medical conditions and not simply exaggerations from history.

Regardless of what modern scholars speculate Claudius’ diagnosis was, the point that is relevant to the thesis is that he had a disability. It is Claudius’ disability that had me fascinated with him when I learned about him in Roman History. I was born with CP, so when I learned about a man who walked with a limp, had a speech impediment and ruled the , I was thrilled. I saw myself in Claudius. He was a man who was intelligent and capable of doing great things, but often times was misunderstood because the condition of his body did not fit the mold of what society perceived an intelligent and capable man to be. When it was time to determine the topic of my thesis, I knew I wanted to write on Claudius. I kept going back to how

Claudius was described because his disability: passive, stupid and unworthy and how these qualities seem to contradict the evidence that he was in control, intelligent and capable of ruling.

As the nature of Claudius’ disability as well as the impact it had on Claudius’ life are discussed, it is imperative that the reader understands that the passages which are presented in

6 Although I was not able to find a source which connects Claudius’ affliction with transverse myelitis, like the other conditions named here, the symptoms of transverse myelitis are in line with the description of Claudius’ symptoms. For more information on transverse myelitis see the fact sheet provided by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (2018). 7 Valitudine sicut olim gravi, ita prospera usus est excepto stomachi dolore, quo se correptum etiam de consciscenda morte cogitasse dixit. Just as he was once in grave health so he enjoyed prosperous health as the Emperor with the exception of stomach pain, which he said that when it seized him, that he even considered killing himself.

3 this thesis are examined with both etic and emic perspectives in mind.8 An etic perspective is set forth by the United Nations Department for Economic and Social Development, Division for

Inclusive Social Development:

…the term ‘persons with disabilities’ is used to apply to all persons with

disabilities including those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory

impairments which, in interaction with various attitudinal and environmental barriers,

hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.

However, this minimum list of persons who may claim protection under the Convention

does not exhaust the categories of the disabilities which fall within the it nor intend to

undermine or stand in the way of wider definition of disabilities under national law (such

as persons with short-term disabilities). It is also important to note that a person with

disabilities may be regarded as a person with a disability in one society or setting, but not

in another, depending on the role that the person is assumed to take in his or her

community. The perception and reality of disability also depend on the technologies,

assistance and services available, as well as on cultural considerations.9

It is with this definition in mind that I will attempt to analyze not just the fact that

Claudius had physical differences, but it is the way others perceived these differences in relation to the roles he was expected to fulfill as a male member of the Imperial family which defined his disability. I will also explain how emic, Roman attitudes towards disability affected the evaluation of Claudius.

8 According to the Oxford English Dictionary the term etic refers to a non-structural, objective approach to the study or description of a particular language or culture, while the term emic refers to only one particular language or culture at a time. Oxford English Dictionary 2000. 9 Department for Economic and Social Development, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), 2018, accessed June,8 2018, https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/about-us/frequently-asked-questions-faqs.html#1.

4 This thesis will present passages from ’s Apocolocyntosis, Suetonius’

Lives of the Caesars and Dio’s Roman History which mention Claudius’ disability. Then I will discuss how the authors described Claudius in regards to his disability based on the conclusion that each author makes about Claudius. The thesis will conclude by bringing the three authors together along with a letter to the Jews at Alexandria written by Claudius himself, to get an overall picture of how these authors describe Claudius and what the reality may have been.

5 Seneca’s Apocolocyntosis

The Apocolocyntosis is thought to written Seneca the Younger, a Stoic philosopher who lived during the reign of Claudius.10 did not condone the mockery of individuals with disabilities.11 If mocking disabilities was wrong for those practicing Stoicism, how did Seneca justify writing the Apocolocyntosis? Seneca wrote the Apocolocyntosis to discredit Claudius’ reign in order to bring praise to his successor, Nero. Seneca even mentions Nero in section 3 of the story when has the Fates grant a new Emperor to rule and Apollo praises his voice and his looks. Just before this passage, comes and states, Fac quod faciendum est:

Dede neci, melior vacua sine regnet in aula (Do what must be done: surrender him to death and let a better man rule in the empty court).12 In addition to a political motive, Seneca likely had personal reasons for the satire as well. In A.D. 41, Seneca was exiled to under the charge of adultery with Caligula’s sister, Julia ,.13 This charge was brought by Claudius’ wife

Messalina, but carried out by Claudius himself.14 Seneca’s focus in the Apocolocyntosis is the corruption of Claudius during his reign such as his citizenship policies mentioned in section 3 as well as his rash and murderous actions, which are discussed by the Divine Augustus in section

11; the disability was a way to enhance the mockery. Seneca nods at Claudius’ disability in the of the satire. Apocolocyntosis, meaning a transformation

10 Osgood 2011, 254 11 Gevaert 2017 and Gevaert 2017, 213 and 216. Gevaert comments that a true Stoic philosopher never mocks disabled people; he only mocks others who don’t share his vision in life. 12 All translations are my own unless otherwise noted. 13 Fitch 2008, 32. 14 Boyle 1999, 284.

6 into a pumpkin, is a play on the word apotheosis, a transformation into a god.15 Thus instead of the Emperor Claudius being transformed into a god, he is turned into a pumpkin. The title of

Apocolocyntosis is a poke at Claudius’ intelligence, claiming that he was a “pumpkin head” because of his disability.16

The Apocolocyntosis opens by having a narrator explain that this is a story about what happened on October 13th A.D. 54, the day Claudius died. The story relays the events of

Claudius ascending to Mount Olympus and seeking to become a god. Claudius’ request is debated before the . The Divine Augustus, Claudius’ great-uncle, closes the debate and

Claudius is led to the Underworld, doomed to roll dice in vain and be beaten by his freedmen and

Caligula.

The descriptions in the Apocolocyntosis have led me to the conclusion, to use a play on words as Seneca has done with the title of the satire, that he was trying to make Claudius seem as nothing more than a “Claudius”17 who should not have been Emperor let alone a god, in order to bring praise to Nero.18

In section 1, Seneca asserts that Claudius was oppressive:

Haec ita vera si quis quaesiverit unde sciam, primum, si noluero, non respondebo. Quis

coacturus est? Ego scio me liberum factum, ex quo suum diem obiit ille, qui verum

proverbium fecerat, aut regem aut fatuum nasci oportere. (Apocolocyntosis 1.1)

15 Pulbrook 1981, 113. 16 Athanassakis 1974, 16. 17 This is a play on the adjective claudus meaning disabled, or better to fit the attitude of the Apocolocyntosis, crippled man. 18 Braund and James (1998) argue that Seneca uses Claudius’ physical appearance and lack of body control to reflect how he ran the State.

7 Thus if anyone should ask from where I know these true things, firstly if I don’t want to

tell, I will not answer. Who will compel me? I know that I was made free since the very

day he died, who made the proverb true- that a person is must be born either a or a

fool.

In this passage, Seneca expresses that he is able to not answer questions regarding the facts of this work if he does not want to because he was freed the day Claudius died. This passage speaks to the idea that Seneca wrote the Apocolocyntosis to mock the cruel and oppressive nature of Claudius. The proverb Seneca quotes is an example of how Seneca uses

Claudius’ disability to enhance the mockery, because for the purpose of the Apocolocyntosis

Claudius was a fatuus in addition to being rex. Next there is a subtle reference to Claudius’ disability when the narrator mentions the man, apparently Livius Geminius, who saw Drusilla going to heaven (qui Drusillam euntem in caelum vidit):19

idem Claudium vidisse se dicet iter facientem “non passibus aequis.”

He will say that he saw Claudius making the same journey “with uneven steps”

(Apocolocyntosis 1.2)

The disability is mentioned in the phrase non passibus aequis which comes from Vergil’s

Aeneid 2.724. In its original context, this phrase referred to the child Iulus trying to keep up with his father as they fled the burning . However, in this context the phrase refers to Claudius’ walking pattern due to the limp of his right leg (5.2). In Timothy O’Sullivan’s book, Walking in

Roman Culture, there is a chapter entitled “Seneca on the Mind in Motion”. This chapter

19 According to Dio’s Roman History 59.11, Livius Geminius claimed he saw Drusilla, the deified sister of Caligula, ascend to heaven. Geminius swore an oath about these events and was paid a million sesterces for his claims. Perhaps Seneca is inferring that the thought of Claudius ascending to heaven is so ridiculous that the man who was paid because he said that he saw Drusilla ascend to heaven, will be the one to ask about Claudius.

8 explains that Seneca the Younger thought that the way a person walked reflected his or her state of mind.20 Thus Claudius’ uneven/inconsistent steps reveal that in his mind is inconsistent and therefore his judgments are also inconsistent as are discussed in regards to Lives of the Caesars

5.15.21 In Iulus’ case his steps will eventually become equal to his father’s as he grows and

Rome, but Claudius’ steps will always be uneven relative to each other, therefore he will never be the leader Rome would expect from a descendant of .

Section 3 has a passage in which Claudius’ oppressive nature is paired with his disability again:

Quid, femina crudelissima, hominem miserum torqueri pateris?Nec unquam tam diu

cruciatus cesset? Annus sexagesimus [et] quartus est, ex quo cum anima luctatur. Quid

huic et rei publicae invides? (Apocolocyntosis 3.1)

Why cruelest woman, are you allowing the poor man to be tormented? Can he never be

free from torture, which he suffered for so long? It is the sixty-fourth year since he

struggled with his breath – why do you refuse him and the republic?

Here Mercury is beseeching one of the Fates to end Claudius’ life. He expresses that

Claudius had led a torturous life because he has struggled to breathe his whole life. Then

Mercury implies that the Republic (rei publicae) as well as Claudius has suffered because of his life. Seneca uses the superlative crudelissima to describe the Fate. She is described as crudelissima because she had the power to end Claudius’ life and everything that implies, but she did not, so Claudius endured suffering in his physical state and the Republic suffered from his cruelty. Although Mercury seems sympathetic to want to end Claudius’ life to free him from his

20 O'Sullivan 2011, 34-50. 21 See page 35.

9 physical suffering, his motives are not that pure. Mercury is implying that the death of Claudius would also bring the end of the suffering of the Republic under Claudius.

Then Mercury states:

Patere mathematicos aliquando verum dicere, qui illum, ex quo princeps factus est,

omnibus annis, omnibus mensibus efferunt. Et tamen non est mirum si errant et horam

eius nemo novit; nemo enim unquam illum natum putavit. (Apocolocyntosis 3.2)

Allow the astrologers to say the truth for once, who since he was made emperor, carried

him out for his burial every year, every . And yet it is not wonderful if they are

wrong and no one learned of his hour; for no one thought that he was ever born.

This passage expresses the concept that Claudius’ days were numbered since he became

Emperor. Seneca adds to this sentiment that it is a surprise that no one knew when he would die, because no one thought he was ever born (nemo enim unquam illum natum putavit). It should be noted that this phrase is a proverb used to refer to a nobody.22 Seneca is implying that Claudius’ health was so bad that astrologers anticipated his death and regarded his life as not worth much.23

Mercury and Apollo have finished talking with Fates about ending Claudius’ life so the

Empire can have a proper ruler through Nero. According to the story, Claudius was watching a group of comedians when he said his last words.

Ultima vox eius haec inter homines audita est, cum maiorem sonitum emisisset illa parte,

qua facilius loquebatur: “vae me, puto, concacavi me.” Quod an fecerit, nescio: omnia

certe concacavit. (Apocolocyntosis 4.3)

22 vol. 15, 441. 23 Braund and James 1998, 302. According to this source, the passage reflects that Claudius was not supposed to be a permanent fixture in life or leadership because of his flawed rule rather than his disability.

10 This was the last speech of his heard among humans, when he uttered a great sound from

that part, from which he was accustomed to speak more easily: “Oh my, I think I soiled

myself!”24 Whether this thing happened- I do not know; he soiled everything really.

In this passage Seneca is using one of Claudius' possible symptoms, bowel dysfunction, to discredit not only Claudius as a person, but Claudius the Emperor as well. Seneca emphasizes the fact that Claudius has a difficult time speaking by writing that the noise he let go from his bottom (sonitum emisisset illa parte) was more easily understood than anything spoken

(loquebatur) from his mouth. Seneca’s use of emisisset and loquebatur when comparing

Claudius' bowel dysfunction with his speaking abilities is a clever play on words for the purpose of discrediting Claudius. Seneca is making the point that the words which came out of Claudius' mouth did simply that - came out and have less meaning than the sonitum which speaks from the other end. Seneca takes this concept even further through Claudius' last words vae me, puto, concacavi me and following that with Quod an fecerit, nescio: omnia certe concacavit. These statements reveal that in Seneca's view not only did Claudius make a mess of himself because of his disability, but also the whole Empire. Seneca uses Claudius’ lack of bowel control as well as his speech to make a connection to his poor administration of the Empire. This analogy ties

Claudius’ disabilities to his performance as Emperor; these revolting symptoms in the Emperor caused a revolting Empire.

The narrator makes a point to say that he is not going to tell about the events which happen on earth after Claudius’ death because no one can forget the great public rejoicing.

Therefore he starts to tell of the events which took place on Olympus.

24 Concacare when translated literally means “to shit”. Seneca is using bathroom humor to humiliate Claudius.

11 Nuntiatur Iovi venisse quendam bonae staturae, bene canum; nescio quid illum minari,

assidue enim caput movere; pedem dextrum trahere. (Apocolocyntosis 5.2)

It is announced to that someone of good height and well in old age has come. I do

not know what he threatens, for he is constantly moving his head and dragging his right

foot.

In this passage Seneca describes Claudius’ height (bonae staturae) as well as his age

(bene canum), physical features not connected with his disability. In addition to these positive features Seneca includes the detail that he kept shaking his head (assidue enim caput movere) and dragging his right foot (pedem dextrum trahere). It is interesting that Seneca contrasts the image of a man with dignified features with the image of man threatening due to the movements of his head. Claudius’ gestures take away the solemnity of his arrival on Olympus because they do not match his initial refined appearance. Thus, the moment he arrives on Olympus, Seneca makes sure to point out that there is something physically different about Claudius.

Next the gods report how they tried to communicate with a stranger:

Quaesisse se, cuius nationis esset: respondisse nescio quid perturbato sono et voce

confusa; non intellegere se linguam eius, nec Graecum esse nec Romanum nec ullius

gentis notae. (Apocolocyntosis 5.2)

They asked him what nationality he was: I don’t know what he replied because of the

disturbed sound and confused voice. They did not understand his language for it was

neither Greek nor Roman nor of any known people.

The narrator does not know how Claudius answered the messengers’ question, cuius nationis esset, because of his speech. This description of Claudius’ speech is similar to Claudius’

12 last words (4.3) because it equates the words which Claudius speaks to simply a sound (sonus) rather than verba. In addition, the sonus is delivered in a voce confusa rather than a clear eloquent voice one would expect a Roman aristocrat to have. According to Josiah Osgood, vox confusa is a technical term for a noise made by an animal. Equating Claudius’ voice to that of an animal’s demonstrates Claudius’ failure as Emperor because he could not communicate with people.25

The passage goes on to explain that Claudius’ speech was so unintelligible (non intellegere se linguam eius) that it did not sound like the language of a civilized nation (nec

Graecum esse nec Romanum) let alone any known nation (nec ullius gentis notae). The messengers of Jupiter assume that Claudius is speaking a foreign language, rather than Latin.

Thus Seneca is painting a picture that Claudius is more different than even barbarians due to his speech. This is yet another criticism of his speech.26

Then Jupiter decides to have question the stranger:

Tum Hercules primo aspectu sane perturbatus est, ut qui etiam non omnia monstra

timuerit. Ut vidit novi generis faciem, insolitum incessum, vocem nullius terrestris

animalis sed qualis esse marinis beluis solet, raucam et implicatam, putavit sibi tertium

decimum laborem venisse. (Apocolocyntosis 5.3)

Then Hercules was truly taken aback at first glance although he was the sort who feared

no monsters. When he saw the appearance of the new kind of creature, its unusual walk, a

voice of no terrestrial animal, but rather one belonging to a beast of the sea, hoarse and

incomprehensible, he thought that a thirteenth labor had come to him.

25 Osgood 2007, 344. 26 See page 20 where Claudius’ gens is questioned in Apocolocyntosis 7.2.

13 Seneca is doing a few things in this passage to undermine Claudius, using his disability.

First, Seneca compares Claudius to the monstra which Hercules has fought. The word monstrum means a horrible creature, which is similar to a portentum indicting an interruption of the natural order of things.27 Seneca makes Claudius a mythological creature (novi generis faciem) to be studied rather than a human. The use of genus is interesting because of its possible meanings.

Genus can have the meaning of ‘race’ as in a nationality of a person or it can also mean ‘kind’ as translated here. Either translation creates an image that Claudius has a different appearance, but when genus is taken as ‘kind’ it makes Claudius appear inhuman. in Book 7 of

Naturalis Historia describes anthropophagous races as gentes monstri.28 Although Naturalis

Historia was not published until after the Apocolocyntosis, Seneca connects monstrum and genus as Pliny the Elder does. Seneca may be implying that Claudius resembles an anthropophagous monster not only by his strange appearance, but by his murderous actions. Seneca bolsters this idea that Claudius is strange monster rather than a human by having Jupiter order Hercules to approach him (iubet ire et explorare) and even though he has traveled the whole world, Hercules is still shocked at the sight and sound of Claudius.

Seneca goes even further to discredit Claudius when he again describes his voice.

Claudius' voice is described as hoarse and incomprehensible (raucam et implicatam) and is compared to that of a sea creature rather than a land animal (vocem nullius terrestris animalis sed qualis esse marinis beluis solet). This comparison of Claudius’ voice to that of a sea creature’s is possibly a reference to the drooling he may have experienced due to the muscle weakness in his mouth. In making this comparison, Seneca not only equates Claudius to a monster, but makes him even farther from a human who lives on land.

27 Gevaert and Laes 2013, 214. 28 Gevaert and Laes 2013, 217. Pliny the Elder referred to strange human races as miracula and prodigia.

14 Lastly, Seneca describes Hercules' encounter with Claudius as a thirteenth labor (putavit sibi tertium decimum laborem venisse). This description is linking Claudius to one of the monstra which Hercules fought in his labors which required superhuman abilities. Thus Seneca is making the point that it is a superhuman task to interact with Claudius because of his disabilities, in particular his speech impediment. Braund and James attribute Claudius’ physical symptoms (shaking head, gait and speech) to his anger. They use passages from Seneca’s

(1.1.4-5 and 3.4.1-3) to explain the nature of Claudius ‘appearance, especially given the fact that he interacts with the monster- slaying Hercules.29

The narrator continues to describe Hercules’ interaction with Claudius:

Diligentius intuenti visus est quasi homo. Accessit itaque et quod facillimum fuit

Graeculo, ait:

τίς πόθεν εἰς ἀνδρῶν, πόθι τοι πόλις ἠδὲ τοκῆες30 (Apocolocyntosis 5.4)

When he looked more closely, it seemed as though he was a man. Thus he approached

and said what was very easy for a Greek:

“Who are you and what is your race? Who are your parents, where is your home?”

Claudius’ reaction to the question follows:

Claudius gaudet esse illic philologos homines, sperat futurum aliquem historiis suis

locum. Itaque et ipse Homerico versu Caesarem se esse significans ait:

’Ιλιόθεν με φέρων ἄνεμος Κικόνεσσι πέλασσεν.

Erat autem sequens versus verior, aeque Homericus:

29 Braund and James 1998, 289-290. 30 Od.1.170. All translations from the Odyssey are by A.T. Murray the Loeb Classical Library, volume 104.

15 ἔνθα δ’ ἐγὼ πόλιν ἔπραθον, ὤλεσα δ’ αὐτούς. (Apocolocyntosis 5.4)

“Breezes wafted me from Ilion unto the Ciconian land” 31

But the following verse was more true and equally Homeric:

“There I sacked a city and killed them.”32

This passage opens by having Hercules examine Claudius more closely (Diligentius intuenti) after thinking that he was confronting a monstrum. However, Claudius’ appearance is still questionable, for he only seems (visus est) to be a kind of man (quasi homo) rather than simply a man (homo). This is the same line of thought as nemo enim unquam illum natum putavit in section 3, suggesting that Claudius is less than human. Seneca may have borrowed his opinion of Claudius being a monstrum for the purpose of this work from the Greek tradition of individuals with disabilities. According to Montserrat, the believed that any deviation from the proper stage (telos), the male being, was a monstrosity. he continues this argument by explaining that women were considered maimed males, and because a person with a disability was contrary to the norm, regardless of gender, that said individual would be regarded as a degree of monstrosity.33 Since Claudius was different than the typical able-bodied man or woman because of his disability, Seneca may have utilized the Greek view of disability to depict

Claudius as something far from any human, a mythological monster, in the satire.

Hercules then asks Claudius “Who are you and what is your race? Who are your parents, where is your home?” in Greek. This quotation is from the Odyssey when Athena comes down from Olympus to Ithaca in order to instill courage onto Telemachus to speak against the suitors

31 Od. 9.39. 32 Od. 9.40. 33 Montserrat 1998, 26.

16 taking over his father’s house. When Athena arrives, she is disguised as Mentes, king of the

Taphians. When Hercules uses the quotation to greet Claudius, he is unsure who or what

Claudius is, but Claudius was simply himself. However, in the original context of the quotation,

Athena was in disguise. Perhaps Seneca is using this quotation to reinforce the idea that something was odd about Claudius’ appearance.

Claudius is glad someone learned (philologus) is there. Seneca does something unexpected; he implies that Claudius was intelligent by referring to his (historiis suis) and has him reply in Homeric verse (Homerico versu). This response appears to be a compliment to Claudius by nodding at his scholarly pursuits and his delight in speaking in Greek and quoting

Homer (Suetonius, Lives 5. 41and 42), but it is not. ’Ιλιόθεν με φέρων ἄνεμος Κικόνεσσι

πέλασσεν is taken from the Odyssey where Odysseus describes his encounter with the Cicones after the sack of Troy. Claudius uses this line to describe himself as a Caesar because of the reference to Ilium. Ilium is an epithet for Rome because according to tradition, the Trojan

Aeneas was to found a “New Troy” in and his descendants would rule over it.34 The insult of this line occurs in the “breezes”. This is a reference to the fart at Claudius’ death (4.3) which carried him to Olympus.35 The Homeric line, ἔνθα δ’ ἐγὼ πόλιν ἔπραθον, ὤλεσα δ’ αὐτούς is described as more true (verior) of Claudius. Here this quotation is a reference to how Claudius overtook the city and killed numerous people during his reign. The reference to sacking the city is reinforced when Fever immediately interrupts to tell Hercules that Claudius was actually born at and he did what a must, which is to sack Rome (Luguduni natus est… Itaque quod

Gallum facere oportebat, Romam cepit.) (6.1). This is a reference to the sacking Rome in

390 B.C.

34 Roth 1988, 26. 35 Braund and James 1998, 301.

17 In the argument, Fever says Ego tibi dico, quae cum illo tot annis vixi (I say to you, I who have lived with him for so many years) (6.1). Here Fever addresses the fact that she has been with Claudius for a long time, so she knows the truth about where he comes from. The goddess

Fever is associated with illness, in particular malaria.36 Thus by having Fever stress that she has lived with Claudius, Seneca reinforces that Claudius had a disability and suffered poor health because of it.

It is through Fever’s correction that Seneca shows Claudius’ temperament and disability:

Excandescit hoc loco Claudius et quanto potest murmure irascitur. Quid diceret, nemo

intellegebat, ille autem Febrim duci iubebat, illo gestu solutae manus et ad hoc unum satis

firmae, quo decollare homines solebat, iusserat illi collum praecidi. (Apocolocyntosis 6.2)

Claudius burnt up at this point and became angry with as great as of a roar as he could.

What he said no one understood. But he was ordering Fever to be executed by that

gesture of his weakened hand, which was strong enough for this one purpose, by which

he was accustomed to behead men. He had ordered her neck to be cut through.

In this passage Seneca demonstrates not only how Claudius’ speech worsened when he was in an emotional state, but his anger as well (quanto potest murmure irascitur. Quid diceret, nemo intellegebat). This passage makes Claudius seem like a madman because of his anger and his speech.

Seneca goes on to explain that Claudius was ordering Fever to be executed (ille autem

Febrim duci iubebat). Here Seneca links Claudius’ cruelty (saevitia) with his physical abilities.

He does this by explaining that he was making a gesture of execution (illo gestu) with his weak

36 Eden 1984, 88.

18 hand which was just strong enough for this sole purpose (solutae manus et ad hoc unum satis firmae). Seneca is saying that Claudius’ hand did not have much use, but what little use it did have was able to inflict a lot of damage because of the amount of people he executed. It is evident here that Claudius lacks the virtue of clementia (clemency), which is a manifestation of self-control.37 Braund and James state that a man cannot rule others if he cannot rule himself and that the ideal ruler therefore possesses supreme self-control.38 The importance of controlling one’s body to one’s ability to rule is reiterated throughout this thesis.

Following Claudius’ outburst over Fever, Seneca writes the phrase [P]utares omnes illius esse libertos: adeo illum nemo curabat (you would have thought they were his own freedmen, the way no one cared about what he was saying). On the surface this phrase might appear as simply a nod to the freedmen’s treatment of Claudius. What if this is a criticism of his disability as well? As Osgood explains, it is a man’s incompetence in public speaking, or a perceived incompetence which potentially compromises his authority, especially among fellow aristocrats.39 This observation adds insult to injury to Claudius. Instead of the gods being compared to aristocrats, who presumably would not have given a second thought to what

Claudius is saying due to his ineloquence, they are compared to Claudius’ own freedmen, who had owed allegiance to their former master, but still showed him disrespect. The gods could be acting like the freedmen in the sense that they don’t care/ pay no attention to (adeo illum nemo curabat) Claudius’ outbursts because they view them as the rantings of a fool which have little importance.

Hercules then speaks directly to Claudius again in order to get an answer out of him:

37 The virtue of moderatio is discussed in Lives of the Caesars 5.41.1 and how it pertains to Claudius’ laughter. 38 Braund and James 1998, 292. 39 Osgood 2007, 341.

19 Tum Hercules “audi me” inquit “tu desine fatuari. Venisti huc, ubi mures ferrum rodunt.

Citius mihi verum, ne tibi alogias excutiam.” (Apocolocyntosis 7.1)

Then Hercules said, “Listen to me! Stop being foolish- you came here where mice gnaw

iron. Tell me more quickly so that I may not knock the foolishness out for you!”

This passage supports the idea that the gods are viewing Claudius’ mannerisms as those of a fool because Hercules demands that Claudius stop acting foolishly (tu desine fatuari). The word fatuus means silly, indicating that the person or in this case behavior is not suitable for a particular situation. It is interesting that Seneca uses a form of fatuus to describe Claudius, whereas he uses stulte (stupid) in section 8 to describe Hercules. The word fatuus refers to a person who lacks the honor to hold decorum in a given situation, rather than a lack of intelligence, where the word stultus carries the meaning of a person being unintelligent.40 Thus in the Apocolocyntosis, Claudius is described as a man who lacks the sense of how to behave in situations rather than lacking the ability to reason at all. A form of fatuus is always used to describe Claudius in this work; he is never referred to as stultus.41

Hercules tells Claudius how he captured the cattle of the three-bodied Geryon in Argos.

He concludes his speech by asking if Claudius came from there. This speech is yet another way

Seneca connects Claudius with a monstrum which Hercules has fought. Hercules even opens the conversation by questioning the strange sounds of his voice and asking what homeland and race produced his shaking head (Quid nunc profatu vocis incerto sonas? Quae patria, quae gens

40 Goodey and Rose 2013, 24. 41 A form of fatuus is used in this passage and in section 1: qui verum proverbium fecerat, aut regem aut fatuum nasci oportere.

20 mobile eduxit caput?) (7.2).42 After the explanation of Hercules labor in Argos, the narration continues:

Haec satis animose et fortiter, nihilo minus mentis suae non est et timet μωροῦ πληγήν

(Apocolocyntosis 7.3)

He said these things courageously and boldly, nevertheless he was not sure of his own

mind and feared a blow from the fool.

This passage indicates that even after Hercules finds out Claudius is human and talks with him he is still a little unsure. Even though Hercules spoke courageously and boldly

(animose et fortiter) he still feared the retaliation of Claudius, who is called a fool here (timet

μωροῦ πληγήν). This fear is derived from the seemly bizarre behavior which Claudius is displaying. It is important to note that μωροῦ πληγήν (blow of the fool) is a parody of a line from the Menander, “no one can escape a god’s blow”.43 The word μωροῦ is substituted for the word “god” again in section 8 where someone makes the argument that Claudius is already worshiped in Britain. The substitution of fool for god is important to the objective of the

Apocolocyntosis, to praise Nero by discrediting Claudius. Seneca achieves this by reinforcing the point that Claudius should not be deified by inserting “fool” where “god” would be expected.

Then comes Claudius’ reaction to Hercules’ speech:

Claudius ut vidit virum valentem, oblitus nugarum intellexit neminem Romae sibi parem

fuisse, illic non habere se idem gratiae … Itaque quantum intellegi potuit, haec visus est

dicere… (Apocolocyntosis 7.3)

42 Note the use of sonas. See the discussion of Apocolocyntosis 4.3 on page 11. 43 Loeb Classical Library vol. 15, 455.

21 When Claudius saw a formidable man, forgetting his nonsense, he understood that no one

was his equal at Rome, but there he did not have the same esteem… So as far as he was

able to be understood, he seemed to say these things…

In this passage, Seneca contrasts Claudius to Hercules. Claudius realizes that Hercules is a formidable man (virum valentem) and has greater authority on Olympus than he. Claudius is no longer in Rome, where he was not necessarily physically , but was politically valens.

Therefore Claudius forgets his nonsense (oblitus nugarum) and states his purpose. However, even here his words are questionable for he is barely understood and only seems (visus est) to say what he speaks.

After Claudius is threatened by Hercules to make him tell what his purpose on Olympus is, Claudius explains that he wants to be a god. The gods debate whether or not he should be deified. It is determined that he should be neither an Epicurean or Stoic god. Despite the rejection of Claudius becoming a Stoic god, the argument was made that [E]st aliquid in illo

Stoici dei (There is something of a Stoic god in him) because nec cor nec caput habet (he has neither heart or head). This reference to Claudius lacking both a heart and a head is reinforcing the fact that Claudius is cruel and stupid. In addition to these comments Hercules states:

Si mehercules a Saturno petisset hoc beneficium, cuius mensem toto anno celebravit,

Saturnalicius princeps, non tulisset illud (Apocolocyntosis 8.2)

If by Hercules he sought this favor from whose festival he celebrated all year, a

Saturnalian Emperor, he would not have received it!

Through the words of Hercules, Seneca is making a joke on Claudius saying that he celebrated his festival all year (cuius mensem toto anno celebravit). The was

22 celebrated on December 17 and was a time when the social structure was turned on its head. A slave had some authority over his master and in terms of the Apocolocyntosis a fool such as

Claudius could be Emperor.44

After more criticism, someone else says this in regards to Claudius:

parum est quod templum in habet, quod hunc barbari colunt et ut deum orant

μωροῦ εὐιλάτου τυχεῖν? (Apocolocyntosis 8.3)

Is it not enough that he has a temple in Britain, that barbarians worship this man and pray

to him as a god, so that they might find a fool to have mercy on them?

This passage is stressing that Claudius already has enough honor by having a temple in

Britain (parum est quod templum in Britannia habet). Seneca is making the point that Claudius does not have the same level of prestige as the other gods. Therefore, he is only worthy to be worshiped by barbarians (quod hunc barbari colunt et ut deum orant) who are as strange as

Claudius. In fact Seneca indicates that the people of Britain are so desperate to have a god that they would take a fool (μωροῦ εὐιλάτου τυχεῖν). Notice that μωροῦ is substituted for god as discussed in section 7.

After all the gods give their opinion on the fate of Claudius, the Divine Augustus states his opinion on the matter. In his argument, he lists only some of the murders Claudius was responsible for as Emperor. He closes the argument by remarking on the physical condition of

Claudius’ body.

44 , North and Price 1998, 124.

23 Hunc nunc deum facere vultis? Videte corpus eius dis iratis natum. Ad summam, tria

verba cito dicat, et servum me ducat. Hunc deum quis colet? Quis credet? Dum tales deos

facitis, nemo vos deos esse credet. (Apocolocyntosis 11.3-4)

You want to make this man a god? Look at his body- born from the rage of the gods! To

prove my point, let him say three words quickly and he can have me as a slave. Who will

worship him as a god? Who will believe in him? As long as you make such gods, no one

will believe that you are gods yourselves.

The Divine Augustus argues that Claudius should not become a god. This passage truly demonstrates the status dissonance of Claudius. Status dissonance is the feeling that by some traditional criteria (especially power, property, prestige) individuals rank high in society, by others low.45 Augustus' argument opens with a rhetorical question (Hunc nunc deum facere vultis?) as if there is any doubt about what the answer is. He immediately orders the gods to look at Claudius' body (Videte corpus eius). This is a reference to the abnormalities in Claudius’ body such as the soluta manus described in his interaction which Fever in section 6.2. Augustus continues his argument by saying that he was born from the rage of the gods (dis iratis natum).

The Romans categorized portents as retrospective, prognostic or deterministic.46 Since the purpose of the Apocolocyntosis is to discredit Claudius in order to praise Nero, Claudius would not be a warning against future events. Augustus surely would not be implying that he had done anything to stir up the wrath of the gods, so it is unlikely that Claudius symbolizes punishment for past transgressions. The more likely possibility he is referring to fact Claudius is a deterministic portent due to the recent destruction of his reign.

45 Osgood 2011, 24. Osgood makes a note that the concept of status dissonance was first applied to the study of the Roman empire in article of Hopkins (1965). 46 Garland 1995, 70.

24 This section indicates that there was an expectation for deities to be physically/visually appealing. This is because deities were symbols of ultimate power and to have a less than perfect deity would be a conflicting idea. This line of thinking follows Augustus' other questions (Hunc deum quis colet? Quis credet?). This raises the question of . It may not be relevant to this thesis, but it is interesting that he is able to be worshiped. He is mentioned once in the satire, but there is no clear connection between him and Claudius.47 Does Seneca not mention Vulcan’s disability because it would cause conflict with his argument of deities having perfect bodies or does this standard not apply to Vulcan because he was born a deity? Garland explains that

Vulcan’s disability is a reflection on his divine power over fire, observing that fire itself must become weakened in order for it to be useful.48 Seneca interprets Claudius’ disability to be the opposite of Vulcan’s, a reflection of his lack of power. This section asks why a man who has been cursed by the gods in life (in his earthly power) should become a god (have divine power).

Seneca has Augustus prove the inadequacy of Claudius to become a deity by pointing out once again that he has trouble speaking (Ad summam, tria verba cito dicat, et servum me ducat.).

For Roman aristocrats eloquence was a vital part of their livelihoods; they would address their clients, members of the Senate and troops on the battlefield.49 Claudius as described here did not possess this ability. Notice the jussive subjunctive in the phrase tria verba cito dicat, et servum me ducat; this suggests that Claudius might not speak or in this case might not be able to speak.

Thus Augustus insults Claudius by saying that he is so confident that Claudius cannot speak three words that he bets not simply his divinity on it, but his freedom. It is important to note that

47 Ecce Iuppiter, qui tot annos regnat, uni Volcano crus fregit. This reference is made in section 11 where the Divine Augustus is justifying why Claudius should not be defied. Augustus is listing the corruption Claudius has done as Emperor and comparing it to Jupiter’s. Referring to the association between Vulcan and Claudius, Braund and James (1998, 295) argue that Seneca may be drawing a parallel between Vulcan and Claudius because of the connection made between Apollo and Nero (c.f. 4.1). 48 For a fuller explanation of Vulcan’s disability, see Garland 1995, 61-2. 49 Osgood 2007, 331-335.

25 Augustus’ reward for Claudius if he can speak three words quickly is that he becomes like an aristocrat by having a slave. Augustus thinks that Claudius would still be unworthy to be a god, even if he could speak clearly.

The last sentence of this passage [D]um tales deos facitis, nemo vos deos esse credet is interesting because Seneca makes a statement on a divine level that Claudius experienced in his life. It is Augustus who expresses similar opinions that Claudius’ physicality in the public eye would discredit the whole family (Suetonius Lives 5.4.2). Through Augustus, Seneca is claiming that Claudius should not become a deity because his physicality will discredit the whole pantheon.

Conclusion

Seneca wrote the Apocolocyntosis in order to praise the Emperor Nero by discrediting his predecessor, Claudius. A criticism of Claudius which Seneca could and did turn to, which was discussed in order to discredit Claudius, was his disability. Throughout the work, Seneca writes references to the late Emperor’s disability. Some of these references are less obvious than others such as [E]t ille quidem animam ebulliit, et ex eo desiit vivere videri (4.2) (and indeed he bubbled up his soul, and from there he ceased to seem to live). However, as seen in the discussion, most of the references to the disability associate Claudius’ poor physicality with his actions. This suggests that the former caused the latter. It is through this connection of Claudius’ physical appearance and behavior that Seneca makes Claudius less human or even a monster.

Although Seneca includes Claudius’ physical symptoms such as digestive issues, head shaking, dragging the right foot and a weak hand, the majority of the passages which mention the disability focus around Claudius’ speech. Seneca’s emphasis on Claudius’ speech impediment

26 rather than his other symptoms is reflective of how disability is a social construct based on a particular culture.50 In the Roman culture, the fact that Claudius walked with a limp would not necessarily have been viewed as a disability.51 As an aristocrat, he would have had the means to find methods of mobility other than his feet (e.g. a litter) or simply did not need to do a lot of walking in his daily life. However, Claudius’ life would have been greatly hindered due to his speech impediment; it most definitely would have been considered a disability.

An aristocrat’s speaking ability had more importance on his political and leadership skills than other abilities.52 which created merit in his political and leadership skills, not the condition of his body. Seneca used this to his advantage in the Apocolocyntosis. He placed more emphasis on Claudius’ speaking ability rather than his physicality because he wanted to discredit him as a leader.

50 See footnote 9. 51 Garland 1995, Rose 2003; Laes 2008; Laes, Goodey and Rose 2013, 8; Krotzl, Mustakallio and Kuuliala 2015, 5- 7. 52 Cf. Osgood 2007. I have referenced this article throughout this section. The article cites references to Claudius’ speech impediment. It also gives an explanation of the importance of an orator’s voice as well as the Emperor's and concludes by explaining how Claudius lacks authority by deviating from what was expected from him.

27 Suetonius Lives of the Caesars

Suetonius wrote the Lives of the Caesars during the reign of (A.D. 117-138) while he was (official secretary to the Emperor). The corpus consists of 12 biographies starting with and ending with . The Lives of the Caesars demonstrated how a Caesar behaved against the background of assumptions about Imperial behavior. Hadrian was more likely to have read these biographies out of interest rather than for instruction on his own behavior. The focal point of the biography is the individual life, personality, and achievements of each Caesar rather than the political focus which is found in history. The structure of each biography is chronological. This means it follows the order in which life and social milestones occurred such as birth, assuming the virilis and public career.53 It is through the nature of this genre that one is able to catch a glimpse of Claudius “the person” rather than the Claudius.

Suetonius used a variety of sources to construct these biographies. One of these sources included historical narratives written in the first century. He used his privileges as ab espistulis to collect official edicts, speeches and correspondences. For the Caesars of his own lifetime, he used his memory and oral tradition. Despite the human aspect we gain from the nature of such personal anecdotes which are derived from such sources, it was not until the last half-century that

Suetonius was considered a respectable biographer. It is apparent that even though some of the information is distorted by misleading generalizations, that much is

53 Wallace-Hadrill 1983, 11, 16, 24.

28 trustworthy and often unique.54 Anecdotes, regardless if they are true or not, are embedded in authentic contexts.55

Unlike Seneca, who was obviously writing a satire of Claudius, Suetonius presented the biography as an accurate history. This is apparent when considering Claudius’ intelligence. Even though Suetonius records a more realistic view of Claudius than the monstrum described in

Seneca’s satire, he still attributes some odd behaviors to Claudius because of his disability. As the discussion of Claudius’ biography will demonstrate, Suetonius records that the Imperial family’s personal opinions of Claudius expressed fear regarding his potential to , due to his physical limitations. These opinions are retained throughout the work and impacted the way

Claudius was viewed as Emperor.

Claudius’ Disability in Early Life

Claudius’ disability is first mentioned when Suetonius writes about his boyhood and how these disabilities had an impact on the way he was raised:

per omne fere pueritiae atque adulescentiae tempus variis et tenacibus morbis conflictatus

est, adeo ut animo simul et corpore hebetato ne progressa quidem aetate ulli publico

privatoque muneri habilis existimaretur (Lives of the Caesars 5.2.2)

throughout almost all of his childhood and adolescence he was ailed by various and

nagging diseases to such an extent that since both mind and body were weak he was not

deemed fit for any public or private office even at an advanced age

54 Wallace-Hadrill 1983 and Hurley 2001,1,7. 55 Saller 1980.

29 This passage indicating that Claudius’ disability affected most of his earlier years is significant because it demonstrates not only how he was perceived by his family, but also the attitudes later shared by others. Suetonius chooses the word morbus to describe a variety of diseases which afflicted Claudius. The word morbus was used when describing a slave who was disabled to such an extent that he could not do his work. Vitium was used to describe a slave who had a disability, such as a speech impediment, which would not hinder his work the way the inability to walk would have.56 These words carry such meanings for slaves, but I see no reason why these meanings would not apply to aristocrats. Suetonius emphasizes that the morbi occurred throughout most of Claudius’ early years which would imply that his disability affected him because the nature of his condition prevented him from performing the duties of a Roman aristocrat as he got older, at least in his family’s view. Although Suetonius records that the disability affected Claudius’ pueritia and adulescentia, there is no mention of the disability regarding Claudius’ infancy (infans).57 This is likely due to the fact that the symptoms of the disability would not have been apparent, especially a speech impediment, until later if the disability was congenial.58 Thus the vitia would not have been morbi because as shown by the passage the symptoms did not affect Claudius’ ability to go through the milestones of infancy, let alone his potential for future leadership during this stage of development.

The theme of Claudius not being sound in both body and mind is implied throughout the whole biography, but Suetonius writes about this concept again in section 4. This section includes a group of letters from the Emperor Augustus to his wife regarding Claudius

56 Toohey 2017, 306. 57 Krotzl, Mustakallio and Kuuliala 2015, 20-21. 58 Laes 2008, 96.

30 which will be discussed in greater detail later, but for now I want to draw attention to the passage in which Augustus discusses the importance of Claudius’ health in reaching social milestones.

Nam si est artius, ut ita dicam, holocleros, quid est quod dubitemus quin per eosdem

articulos et gradus producendus sit per quos frater eius productus sit?

(Lives of the Caesars 5.4.1-2)

For if he is sound in mind and body, so that I would say “all there”, why is it that we

hesitate that he should advance through the same positions and milestones, which his

brother did?

These two passages (Lives of the Caesars 5.2.2 and 4.1-2) demonstrate the concept that the Romans had about the connection between the body and mind. The Romans thought that the state of the body corresponded with the state of the mind.59 Claudius’ physicality was weakened and caused respective delays and limitations and by consequence those physical hindrances made it seem as though his mind was weakened. It is because of the Roman mind-body connection that

Claudius faced the criticism of status dissonance during his lifetime.60

The following passage shows the nature of Claudius’ legal independence:

Diu atque etiam post tutelam receptam alieni arbitrii et sub paedagogo fuit

(Lives of the Caesars 5.2.2)

For a long time and even after the guardianship of another’s judgment was taken away,

he was also under the care of a tutor

59 Goodey and Rose 2013, 35. 60 Osgood 2011, 24.

31 This passage indicates that Claudius was under the legal guardianship of a tutor

(paedagogus) well after he should have been considered an adult. This concept of extended guardianship was used for individuals with disabilities. A curator, as they are referred to, managed his charge’s affairs because he was deemed incapable of handling the task himself.61

The Imperial family put Claudius under the supervision of a paedagogus for longer than was necessary due to his age, but they thought it was necessary legally, because from his appearances, Claudius seemed incapable of being in charge of himself. The fact that Claudius was under the authority of a paedagogus for so long may have contributed to the perception that

Claudius was passive, because he did not make decisions for himself from an early age.

Claudius himself gives some insight to life with his tutor:

quem barbarum et olim superiumentarium ex industria sibi appositum, ut se

quibuscumque de causis quam saevissime coerceret, ipse quodam libello conqueritur

(Lives of the Caesars 5.2.2)

Claudius himself complained in a certain book that he (the tutor) was a barbarian and was

a former mule driver appointed to him on purpose in order that he might punish him as

savagely as possible for whatever reason.

Here, the nature of the tutor is revealed by Claudius; Claudius says that his tutor was a mule driver (superiumentarium). This comparison is significant because superiumentarii were not only in charge of animals, but menial workers as well. Thus Claudius makes an analogy of himself being like animal or a laborer.62 Claudius implies that his paedagogus was appointed to him as a mule driver to essentially see that he did his job, as if spurring on an animal. Thus the

61 Toohey 2017, 304. If the charge was an impubes the curator was a ‘tutor’. 62 Hurley 2001, 70.

32 paedagogus influenced Claudius’ reputation as someone similar to a common laborer or even a beast of burden, instead of a member of the Imperial family. Through the harsh treatment of the paedagogus, Claudius is depicted as someone who needs to be controlled instead being in control.

Suetonius continues to write how Claudius’ disability affected his earlier life through the opinions of his female relatives in section 3.

Mater Antonia portentum eum hominis dictitabat nec absolutum a natura, sed tantum

incohatum (Lives of the Caesars 5.3.2)

His mother Antonia said repeatedly that he was a portent of a human not completed by

nature, but only started

Here Suetonius records that Antonia refers to Claudius as a portent (portentum). A portent is similar to a monstrum as discussed in regards to section 5 of the Apocolocyntosis, a sign from the gods that indicates that the relationship between the gods and humans was disrupted.63 Antonia is reported to have continued to say that Claudius was not complete by nature, but just started (nec absolutum a natura, sed tantum incohatum). Antonia is comparing her son because of his physical condition to a strange occurrence in nature set off by the confrontation between the gods and humans. Pliny the Elder later utilized the word portentum when describing an abnormal birth.64 If Pliny the Elder’s classification of such terms was shared

63 Beard, North and Price 1998, 172. 64 Gevaert and Laes 2013, 217.

33 by Antonia, it is logical that she would use portentum to describe Claudius rather than monstrum as Seneca did. The latter referred to a member of a race while the former referred to an individual, but they both indicate that there is a disturbance of the natural order.

The passage above shares a connection with what Livilla says about her brother:

Soror Livilla cum audisset quandoque imperaturum, tam iniquam et tam indignam sortem

p. R. palam et clare detestata est. (Lives of the Caesars 5.3.2)

His sister Livilla when she had heard that at some point he would be Emperor, cursed

plainly and clearly the so unjust and undeserved fate of the .

Livilla’s cry of concern when she hears that Claudius will be Emperor is connected to her mother’s comment regarding him as a portentum because Livilla uses the word sortem which implies a fate/lot orchestrated by the gods. Suetonius’ use of the words portentum and sortem to describe events of Claudius’ childhood could be a foreshadowing to his reception of his leadership. Section 10 describes Claudius’ accession where Caligula was assassinated by the guard at the games at the hill and Claudius hid behind the curtain in the

Hermaeum. Suetonius writes mirabili casu (by a remarkable chance) to describe Claudius receiving the . It was Claudius’ disability which kept him out of the public eye because he did not meet his family’s expectations of what a man in authority should be. Thus from this perspective it would be mirabili casu that Claudius obtained the Principate rather than sors as his sister lamented.

This statement which Antonia made regarding Claudius’ apparent stupidity:

ac si quem socordiae argueret, stultiorem aiebat filio suo Claudio

(Lives of the Caesars 5.3.2)

34 and if she would accuse anyone of dullness, she would say that he is more stupid than her

son Claudius!

Antonia indicates that Claudius was used as a model of stupidity. As discussed in the section of Seneca’s Apocolocyntosis, stultus has the meaning of unintelligence. Antonia clearly

Claudius regarded as unintelligent and this view must have been perceived by other in order for the comparison to be effective.

A form of the word stultitia appears three times in this biography. All three instances of the word were referring to Claudius. The first occurrence of the word stultitia appears in section

15, where Suetonius records Claudius’ methods for judging court cases. Throughout the section

Claudius is depicted as inconsistent in his judgments (varietate animi). He is also described being silly on occasion like a madman (nonnumquam frivolus amentique similis) and is called

“an old man and a fool” (καὶ σὺ γέρων εἶ καὶ μωρός) by a Greek litigant.65 In these descriptions,

Claudius is described as either silly or a fool because his judgments were unexpected or unusual.66 It is not until the end of the section, when a man tried for a charge of inappropriate conduct toward women, that Claudius was called unintelligent:

65 The same Greek word μωρός ‘fool’ was also used to describe Claudius in the Apocolocyntosis 7.3 and 8.3. See pages 21 and 23. 66 An example of such judgment is as follows: Feminam non agnoscentem filium suum dubia utrimque argumentorum fide ad confessionem compulit indicto matrimonio iuvenis. (Lives of the Caesars 5.15.2) (He forced a woman not acknowledging her own son to confess, since the evidence on both sides was in dubious faith, by ordering her to marry the youth.). This idea of a lack of judgment is expressed elsewhere: Inter cetera in eo mirati sunt homines et oblivionem et inconsiderantiam, vel ut Graece dicam, μετεωρίαν et ἀβλεψίαν (Lives of the Caesars 5.39.1) (Among the other things against him, people were amazed at both his forgetfulness and his thoughtlessness, or so I may say it in the Greek μετεωρίαν and ἀβλεψίαν). It is also during times of judgment when Claudius displays careless speech: Sermonis vero rerumque tantam saepe neglegentiam ostendit, ut nec quis nec inter quos, quove tempore ac loco verba faceret, scire aut cogitare existimaretur. (Lives of the Caesars 5.40.1) (In truth, he showed such great negligence in his speech and matters, that it was thought that he neither knew or considered to whom nor among whom nor what time or place he would speak words). I will discuss the connection between Claudius’ speech and his ability to rule when I discuss his physical description (Lives of the Caesars 5.30).

35 graphium et libellos, quos tenebat in manu, ita cum magna stultitiae et saevitiae

exprobratione iecisse in faciem eius, ut genam non leviter perstrinxerit.

(Lives of the Caesars 5.15.4)

He threw a stylus and a tablet, which he was holding in his hand, into Claudius’ face with

so much force as he was reproaching his stupidity and cruelty that he grazed his cheek

greatly.

The man accused for the crime calls Claudius out not only on account of his stupidity (stultitia), but also his cruelty (saevitia) in fit of anger over the verdict. In this scenario, as was discussed when Claudius attempted to decapitate Fever, Claudius’ anger is connected with a possible symptom (apparent slowness of intellect), suggesting the former comes from the latter.67 Yet again, both of these qualities are highlighted in order to make Claudius look like a monster who is unfit to hold a position of authority. This passage also shows that the people he dealt with did not respect him.68

The next instance of the word stultitia comes from Claudius’ own mouth and is recorded as followed:

Ac ne stultitiam quidem suam reticuit simulatamque a se ex industria sub Gaio, quod

67 C.f. Apocolocyntosis 6.2. See page 18. 68 Here is another example of when people showed disrespect toward Claudius: Illud quoque a maioribus natu audiebam, adeo causidicos patientia eius solitos abuti ut discedentem e tribunali non solum voce revocarent, sed et lacinia togae retenta, interdum pede apprehenso detinerent (Lives of the Caesars 5.15.3) (I kept hearing from older people that were even accustomed to abuse his patience, to such an extent that they would not only call him back with their voices when he was withdrawing from the tribunal, but even held him back by the flap of his toga and sometimes they would detain him by grabbing his foot). This passage demonstrates that people would try to manipulate Claudius into changing his judgments by physically restraining him. According to Hurley, touching the Emperor was forbidden, because of the danger of assassination (p.126). In addition to showing disrespect to Claudius as the Emperor, the causidici show disrespect to Claudius as a person.

36 aliter evasurus perventurusque ad susceptam stationem non fuerit, quibusdam oratiunculis

testatus est. (Lives of the Caesars 5.38.3)

He did not keep quiet about his stupidity and declared in certain little speeches that he

pretended purposely under , because otherwise he would have not escaped and

reached his accepted position.

Claudius tries to escape his reputation for being unintelligent by reassuring the people that he only acted that way to survive the reign of Caligula. This is reminiscent of when Hercules orders Claudius to stop being foolish (tu desine fatuari).69 Claudius admitted that he only appeared unintelligent when necessary. How the people responded to the confession is interesting:

nec tamen persuasit, cum intra breve tempus editus sit, cui index erat μωρῶν

ἐπανάστασις, argumentum autem stultitiam neminem fingere.

(Lives of the Caesars 5.38.3)

However he did not persuade anyone. Within a short time, after he said these things, a

book was published, the title of which was “The Elevation of Fools”, but the argument

was that no one pretends to be stupid.

Here the people’s unchanged perception of Claudius demonstrates how a quality attributed to him by his mother (and the rest of the family) is carried with him for the remainder of his life and even after his death.

Suetonius records what Livia thought of her grandson:

69 C.f. Apocolocyntosis 7.1. See page 20.

37 Avia Augusta pro despectissimo semper habuit, non affari nisi rarissime, non monere nisi

acerbo et brevi scripto aut per internuntios solita (Lives of the Caesars 5.3.2)

His grandmother Augusta always thought of him as the most despicable boy. She did not

speak to him except very rarely and was accustomed to give instruction to him in a harsh

and short letter or through go- betweens.

Here we see more evidence for a negative attitude towards Claudius from his grandmother. This passage is reminiscent of the passage in the Apocolocyntosis when Jupiter sent Hercules to investigate Claudius (5.3). Livia is in the role of authority like Jupiter was and likewise does not interact with Claudius directly, but through notes and messengers (acerbo et brevi scripto aut per internuntios solita). She viewed him as the most despicable boy

(despectissimo), just as Jupiter feared a monster (5.3).70

The opinions of Antonia, Livilla and Livia are undeniably harsh towards Claudius. These opinions may have been formed by Claudius’ female relatives because it was their duty as women to produce offspring fit to be an heir. In other words, it was thought that if the Emperor’s household (domus) came undone, so did the Principate itself.71 This explanation sheds light on

Antonia’s reaction. Although the Romans viewed a child with a disability as a sign of punishment in the society as a whole, the Greeks viewed such a child as a punishment on the parents themselves.72 Antonia’s remarks about Claudius could be a reflection of both cultural views. Antonia could have felt that she personally was being punished for something for having

70 Since despectissimo is a second declension adjective, Livia could have been calling Claudius either the most despicable boy or the most despicable thing. The latter reinforces the negative feeling which Livia had towards her grandson. 71 Osgood 2011, 212. 72 Garland 1995, 65; King 2005,183-184.

38 a child with a disability and in turn because she had allowed the Emperor’s household to be weakened by her child, the people would suffer because of the now weakened Principate.

Hiding the Disability

The next section of passages demonstrates to what lengths Claudius’ family went in order to keep his disability hidden from the public eye. The first passage describes Claudius sponsoring munera with his brother Germanicus:

Ob hanc eandem valitudinem et gladiatorio munere, quod simul cum fratre memoriae

patris edebat, palliolatus novo more praesedit (Lives of the Caesars 5.2.2)

Because of the same ill health even at the gladiatorial games, which he was putting on at

the same time with his brother in memory of their father, he was wearing a cloak in a

strange fashion.

Here Claudius wears a cloak (palliolatus) to hide his disability. It is ironic that Suetonius records that Claudius wears a pallium because according to Donna Hurley in the commentary,

Suetonius: Divus Claudius, this was a garment not unusually worn by a young healthy man. A pallium was worn to hide a deformity. 73 A Roman would have known the significance of the type of cloak simply by looking at it. Spectators would have realized that something was physically wrong with Claudius. In addition to the stigma of wearing the pallium for this purpose, Suetonius uses the phrase novo more. This indicates that a cloak was not worn on such occasions and would have drawn people’s attention to Claudius because of his strange dress. The

Imperial family was willing to risk some attention to Claudius in order to avoid complete exposure to his disability.

73 Hurley 2001, 70. This note refers to the previous sentence as well. Hurley also notes that a pallium was worn by prostitutes.

39 The next passage explains the circumstances of Claudius assuming the toga virilis, which broke away from tradition in order to hide the disability:

et togae virilis die circa mediam noctem sine sollemni officio lectica in Capitolium latus

est. (Lives of the Caesars 5.2.2)

And he was carried on a litter to the Capitoline Hill around midnight on the day of

receiving the toga virlis without the customary ceremony.

The first indicator of the disability is the litter (lectica); the youth being honored would lead the procession on foot. The use of a litter would indicate that Claudius had difficulty walking. Secondly, the ceremony was traditionally held in the morning, but Claudius’ ceremony was held in the middle of night without the company of friends and family (sine sollemni officio).74 The darkness of night would make it difficult for the onlookers who were witnessing the ceremony to notice the imperfections of Claudius’ body. The donning of the toga virlis was not only a reflection on Claudius, but was a symbol of his family’s present vitality and their future prosperity.75 It is probable that the Imperial family felt shame on this occasion because

Claudius’ appearance suggested a lack of health or fitness in the family. This relationship between Claudius’ appearance in the public eye and the concern of the family is more explicit in the following passages. This description makes it seem like the ceremony was done out of obligation rather than celebration. The ceremony of the toga virilis was a reflection of the young man’s daily walk into the forum. 76 Since the ceremony of the toga virilis carried so much weight in a young man’s public life, it is no surprise that Claudius’ ceremony was orchestrated in the circumstances which it was. The ceremony simply reflected what the Imperial family thought

74 Hurley 2001, 71. 75 Dolansky 2008, 59. 76 O'Sullivan 2011, 57-58.

40 would become of Claudius’ public life; a public life with not much attention and few supporters.

Perhaps this apathy towards an otherwise important milestone is implying that Claudius’ family did not truly consider him to be a man because of his disability.

The anxiety of Claudius being seen in public continue in a letter from Augustus to Livia:

Spectare eum circenses ex pulvinari non placet nobis; expositus enim in fronte prima

spectaculorum conspicietur (Lives of the Caesars 5.4.3)

It does not please me that he watches the games from the imperial box, for he will be

noticed while exposed in the very front of the spectacles.

Just as Claudius’ toga virilis ceremony was planned so few people as possible could catch sight of his disability, likewise Augustus thought it was best that Claudius did not sit with the Imperial family at the circuses because he would have been easily noticed by the crowd. It would have been important for Claudius to be present at such munera as a member of the

Imperial family in order to build good rapport among the people as leaders of the Empire.

However, it is this rapport which Augustus is concerned about when Claudius is exposed to the spectators. As expressed throughout this thesis, Claudius does not have the image of power that one would expect from a member of the Imperial family and therefore Augustus feared that

Claudius would have compromised the Imperial image which was just starting to form.

This fear of a compromised public image because of Claudius is expressed more clearly in a previous section of the letter when Augustus writes about how Claudius’ appearance affects not only himself, but the reputation of his family as well:

41 Sin autem ἠλαττῶσθαι sentimus eum et βεβλάφθαι καὶ εἰς τὴν τoῦ σώματoς καὶ εἰς τὴν

τῆς ψυχῆς ἀρτιότητα, praebenda materia deridendi et illum et nos non est hominibus τà

τοιαῦτα σκώπτειν καὶ μυκτηρίζειν εἰωθόσιν. (Lives of the Caesars 5.4.2)

But if we feel that he falls short of the mark and is disabled with respect to soundness of

both body and mind, we must not provide to people accustomed to mock and sneer at

such things the grounds for ridicule of both him and us.

Like the previous passage, this also demonstrates the importance of public image in political power. Augustus continues to express that the people will remove their support from not only himself, but also the family as prospective rulers of a growing Empire because of Claudius’ appearance. This concept bears resemblance to what was discussed about the female relatives’ opinions of Claudius (5.3.2). If the people saw weakness in Claudius they might view this as weakness and the Imperial family, but ultimately the Principate itself.

There is some compromise to the dilemma. Claudius is able to participate in the feast of

Mars on one condition:

[C]urare eum ludis Martialibus triclinium sacerdotum non displicet nobis si est passurus

se ab Silvani filio homine sibi affini admoneri, ne quid faciat quod conspici et derideri

possit (Lives of the Caesars 5.4.3)

It does not displease me that he manages the feast of the priests at the games of , if

he will allow himself to be advised by a relative, the son of , so that he might not

do something which could cause him to be noticed and mocked.

42 This passage shows that Augustus did want Claudius to participate in public life as a member of the Imperial family. However, he was not confident enough to allow him to perform the duties alone. In religious feast, such as the one to Mars, there were rituals which must be done in a specific way without blunder or they were void and must be repeated. Perhaps Augustus thought if Claudius had some help with the rituals of the feast from his brother-in-law, it would allow him to be seen in public without much attention to his disability.

The letter between Augustus and Livia closes with Augustus’ final opinion on Claudius’ role in public:

Habes nostras, mea Livia, sententias, quibus placet semel de tota re aliquid constitui, ne

semper inter spem et metum fluctuemur (Lives of the Caesars 5.4.4)

You have my options, my Livia, by which it pleases me that something be set up about

the whole matter at one time, so that we might not always be fluctuating between hope

and fear.

Augustus argues that there is inconsistency in Claudius and one final decision must be made about his great- nephew’s public role in order to preserve the family’s reputation.77 Notice the use of placet in this passage. This shows that Augustus is content with this course of action concerning Claudius. A form of placere was echoed two other times in this letter.78 The first time was when Augustus did not want Claudius to sit in the Imperial box (5.4.3). The second occurrence, which appeared in the discussion of the feast of Mars, was a litotes (non displicet)

77 This same theme of settling the issue of Claudius’ public life in one ultimate decision occurs before in the same letter after Augustus explains that people tend to deride such appearances as Claudius’. Nam semper aestuabimus, si de singulis articulis temporum deliberabimus, μὴ πρoϋπoκειμένoυ ἡμῖν posse arbitremur eum gerere honores necne (Lives of the Caesars 5.4.2). (For we will always be agitated, if we deliberate about every single instance, unless we settle the question of whether we think that he is able to hold public offices.). 78 Hurley 2001, 77.

43 (5.4.3). The use of a litotes alludes to hesitation on Augustus’ part, indicating that he was unsure about how Claudius would have reacted in that situation, even with the help. On the contrary, the former example as well as the example and this passage contains a form of placere to indicate that Augustus was firm in his decision.

Claudius’ Physical Description and Physiognomy

Claudius’ physical description will give insight into why the family was unsure about his potential. Throughout the discussion I will include other passages which demonstrate the characteristics described and give further explanation.

Auctoritas dignitasque formae non defuit ei, verum stanti vel sedenti ac praecipue

quiescenti, nam et prolixo nec exili corpore erat et specie canitieque pulchra, opimis

cervicibus; ceterum et ingredientem destituebant poplites minus firmi, et remisse quid vel

serio agentem multa dehonestabant: risus indecens, ira turpior spumante rictu, umentibus

naribus, praeterea linguae titubantia caputque cum semper tum in quantulocumque actu

vel maxime tremulum. (Lives of the Caesars 5.30)

Power and honor were not missing from him when he was standing or sitting, but

especially when resting. For he was tall but not thin with regards to his body, with

handsome gray hair and face, and with a full neck. But still his knees were not quite

steady as he walked, and many other things were discrediting him both in his relaxed

movements and his serious ones. He had unbecoming laughter and more repulsive anger

with his foaming mouth, with his wet nostrils, and in addition to this he had staggering

speech and his head shook all the time but especially when he was active, however

minimally.

44 The first clause of the passage contains a litotes (non defuit) pertaining to Claudius’ appearance in which power () and honor () are the subjects of this verb. If one were to read this clause without going any further he or she would get the impression that Claudius has the stately appearance that one would expect from a Roman leader. However, Suetonius continues to write that Claudius’ stately appearance only occurs when he is standing, sitting, and resting

(stanti … sedenti…quiescenti). In an article on Suetonius’ depictions of the body, Bill Gladhill writes that in this physical description Claudius’ symptoms are less noticeable when he is not moving very much, as if he were a statue.79 Thus the less Claudius moved, the more auctoritas and dignitas he possessed and the more he looked like the Emperor.

The word dignitas is used in connection with Claudius in section 5 Tunc demum abiecta spe dignitatis ad concessit. (Then at last losing hope of advancement, he yielded to a life of leisure)80. Here the word dignitas is describing Claudius’ actions, rather than his body. This statement follows a passage which explains that Claudius asked for an official duty after receiving the consular regalia. In response to this request, Tiberius gave Claudius 40 aurei for the Saturnalia and the Sigillaria.81 It is interesting that Claudius gives up the honors which come with his social status only after Tiberius gives him money for the Saturnalia and the Sigillaria offering. Perhaps Tiberius was mocking Claudius by bestowing him with the honor (dignitas) he deemed worthy based on the appearance of his nephew and not his birthright. This theory is bolstered by the fact that Tiberius gave Claudius the responsibility after he, Claudius, was

79 Gladhill 2012, 341. 80 The word dignitas is also used in section 3.1 where Claudius’ hope for a successful future is to be determined. Verum ne sic quidem quicquam dignitatis assequi aut spem de se commodiorem in posterum facere potuit (But even so he was not able to pursue any honor any to make a more suitable hope for himself in the future). 81 Tiberius patruus petenti honores consularia ornamenta detulit; sed instantius legitimos flagitanti id solum codicillis rescripsit, quadraginta aureos in Saturnalia et Sigillaria misisse ei (Lives of the Caesars 5.5) (His uncle Tiberius gave the consular regalia to him after seeking honors; but after he more insistently demanded legitimate honors Tiberius just wrote back in a note that he sent 40 aurei to him for the Saturnalia and Sigiliaria. According to Hurley, the Sigiliaria was a seven-day period of gift-giving associated with the Saturnalia (p. 83).

45 dissatisfied with privileges which come with the consularia ornamenta. Those who held the consularia ornamenta had the right to wear consular dress, sit with consulars at feast and take precedence in public, but did not admission to the Senate.82 The idea of Claudius celebrating the

Saturnalia is mentioned in section 8.2 of the Apocolocyntosis.83 Both these sources indicate that

Claudius is more suited for the celebration of the topsy-turvy holiday rather than being in a position of authority.

As we read further on, it is clear that Suetonius’ physical description of Claudius bears similarities to Seneca’s in the Apocolocyntosis. Both works depict Claudius as having seemingly dignified features, which were discredited by his walking pattern (poplites minus firmi).84

Suetonius describes Claudius as having a full neck (opimis cervicibus). The pairing of these words is used elsewhere in to describe ’s sea taurus.85 This image is similar to Seneca’s description where Claudius has a voice of a sea creature.86 However, unlike

Seneca, Suetonius lists Claudius’ sea creature- like neck among dignified features. It is only when Claudius moves his neck that he presents an undignified appearance (linguae titubantia caput…tremulum).87 Claudius’ repeated head shaking could have caused hypertrophy of the cervical muscles which gave him his full neck.88 This reinforces the idea that Claudius most possesses the qualities of an Emperor when he is doing no action at all.

Claudius’ speech impediment affected him since his early life and was more noticeable in certain circumstances than others, as Augustus mentions:

82 Hurley 2001, 82. 83 See page 22. 84 Cf. Seneca Apocolocyntosis 5.2. See page 12. 85 C.f. Seneca 1042. See Gladhill (2012), 341. 86 Cf. Seneca Apocolocyntosis 5.3. See pages 13-14. 87 The phrase titubare lingua is connected with drunkenness (c.f. Seneca Epistulae Morales 95,14) as well as bad oratory (c.f. Ad Herenium 2,8). See Laes 2013, 150-152. 88 Rice 2000, 200; Murad 2010, 225.

46 Nam qui tam ἀσαϕῶς loquatur, qui possit cum declamat σαϕῶς dicere quae dicenda sunt,

non video (Lives of the Caesars 5.4.6)

For I do not see how he who talks so unclearly, is able to speak clearly when he declaims

the words which must be spoken.

The word loqui, means to talk in everyday conversion, while the word declamare means to speak publicly in a formal setting. The difference in the words assists with understanding why Claudius had difficulty speaking in some situations but was fine in others. When a person speaks

(loquitur) he is having a casual and candid conversion which may involve a variety of emotions.

Given what has been discussed regarding Claudius’ emotions, especially his anger, it is easy to imagine how his speech would become unclear in everyday conversion.

In contrast, when a person makes a formal speech (declamat), he in some capacity prepares what he is going to say. Therefore, by rehearsing the pronunciations of the words,

Claudius could have improved his speech in order to make his diction clearer. The concept of overcoming a speech impediment by hard work is a reoccurring theme in ancient literature.89

Claudius would have been familiar with the Athenian orator, Demosthenes, and how he overcame his speech impediment.90 Or perhaps Claudius had his own method of monitoring his speech, such as the methods recorded by Caelius Aurelianus in the fifth century. His methods of voice training include taking a deep breath, shouting, beginning a sentence with simple (one-

89 Wollock 1997,42-43. 90Demosthenes would train his voice by speaking with pebbles in his mouth and reciting speeches while running up hill without taking breath (Demosthenes 11.1). See Rose 2003, 50-66 for more discussion on Demosthenes’ speech impediment.

47 syllable) words and ending with spontaneous conversation.91 But what if Claudius’ emotions were running high while he was declaiming?

The following passage is such an example:

Et cum primum frequenti auditorio commisisset, aegre perlegit refrigeratus saepe a semet

ipso. Nam cum initio recitationis defractis compluribus subselliis obesitate cuiusdam

risus exortus esset, ne sedato quidem tumultu temperare potuit, quin ex intervallo subinde

facti reminisceretur cachinnosque revocaret. (Lives of the Caesars 5.41.1)

And when he began his first reading in a crowded auditorium, he read through it with

difficulty and often exhausted himself by his own doing. For at the beginning of the

reading when several benches broke due to the rotundness of a particular man, laughter

ensued, and not even when the uproar subsided was he able to control himself. Rather he

would remember the event over and over again in intervals and would keep up his

excessive laughter.

Here Claudius is reading in front of a group of people, an activity similar to . Based on what was observed by Augustus one would expect Claudius to read with relative ease, but when something occurs to disrupt the formal setting (a man breaking a bench) it makes the situation more casual. This causes Claudius to be unable to declaim (declamare). Apparently, this incident had an impact on later public readings, for Suetonius records, In principatu quoque et scripsit plurimum et assidue recitavit per lectorem. (Lives of the Caesars 5.41.2) (Likewise during his Principate he wrote many things and constantly recited them through a reader).

91 C.f. Caelius Aurelianus,Tardarum passionum 2,41. This passage does not specifically apply to rhetoricians and is intended anyone who had difficulty speaking Laes 2013, 163.

48 Perhaps it was thought best for Claudius’ public image that he had a lector read for him, so there was not a reoccurrence of the kind of problem that his laughter caused during his first reading.

The problem may not have been Claudius’ laughter per se because the whole audience laughed, but instead his excessive laughter (cachinnus), literally a loud laugh. Suetonius describes Claudius as having an unbecoming laugh (risus indecens). Perhaps he had a risus indecens, not because of the sound of the laughter, but because of amount of it. This implies that he lacked the Roman virtue of moderatio (moderation). A proper Roman man displayed moderatio in every aspect of his life in order to show that he was a balanced man. Claudius’ excessive laughter does not reflect moderatio and therefore is indecens for an Emperor of Rome.

Suetonius continues to describe Claudius as an animal in respects to a drooling mouth and wet nose (spumante rictu, umentibus naribus). Gladhill discusses how Claudius’ foaming jaws in fits of anger resemble descriptions of lions.92 Although wet noses are not referenced anywhere else in Latin literature, this phrase also gives an image of an animal. Claudius’ opimis cervicibus in addition to resembling that of a sea creature as discussed above, is also reminiscent of an animal of servitude. Tauri and other bovines were often used for menial labor. These animal-like qualities, which are brought about by possible symptoms of Claudius’ condition, indicate yet again that it appears that he needed to be controlled just as an unruly animal does.

As shown throughout this discussion, Suetonius’ physical description compares to

Seneca’s due to the fact that both works contrast dignified features with features of beasts. It has been reiterated several times that Seneca describes Claudius in this manner to fit the expectations of satire. But why would Suetonius’ account have the same properties? The answer is in physiognomy. Physiognomy attempts to reveal the true, inward character of a person or entire

92 Gladhill 2012, 341. Cf. Silius, Punica 10.246 and Met. 4.97.

49 nation by the interpretation of their outward appearance.93 This theory of physiognomics is evident in Augustus’ letter to Livia where he discusses Claudius’ choice in friends, specifically

Sulpicius and Athenodorus:

Qui vellem diligentius et minus μετεώρως deligeret sibi aliquem, cuius motum et habitum

et incessum imitaretur (Lives of the Caesars 5.4.5)

I wish he would choose more diligently and in a less scatterbrained way someone whose

movement, posture and step he might imitate.94

Notice how Augustus writes that the friends’ incessus were imitated. The word incessus means more than simply a person’s ‘step’ or ‘gait’; it carries the connotation of ‘bearing’ or ‘demeanor’.

To a Roman the way a person walks indicates who that person is in terms of their social status, gender and political standing.95 This explanation demonstrates why Augustus placed so much importance on the quality of Claudius’ companions. Augustus thought that Claudius walked with an atypical gait by choice, or at least that he could correct the gait caused by his disability, rather than necessity, due to a physical impairment. The Romans believed that a proper walk could be taught, but only if one had a proper model to follow.96

However, since Claudius was associating with vulgar people it reflected badly on

Claudius:

93 Rohrbacher 2010, 92. Theories of physiognomics in Suetonius Lives of the Caesars have developed from the research of Coussin (1953), Evans (1969), Gascou (1984) and Stok (1995). 94 A similar conclusion about Claudius’ character is expressed here: Misellus ἀτυχεῖ· nam ἐν τoῖς σπoυδαίoις, ubi non aberravit eius animus, satis apparet ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτoῦ εὐγένεια.” (Lives of the Caesars 5.4.5) (The poor little boy is unfortunate, for in matters, when his mind does not go astray, the nobility of his character is apparent enough.). 95 O'Sullivan 2011, 12-13. 96 O'Sullivan 2011, 17.

50 atque ex contubernio sordidissimorum hominum super veterem segnitiae notam ebrietatis

quoque et aleae infamiam subiit (Lives of the Caesars 5.5)

and from his companionship with the foulest people, on top of the long-standing rumor of

his feebleness he also became known for the dishonor of drunkenness and gambling

This passage gives evidence that it was already known that Claudius had a disability. Even though Augustus hoped that Claudius would have improved his incessus by choosing friends more suitable for a member of the Imperial family, he would have still possessed his natural gait.

In fact, according to this passage, Claudius’ natural incessus is highlighted because of his character, just as it is in the Apocolocyntosis. Despite the theme of the Apocolocyntosis and

Augustus’ fear of mockery of such behavior, the people had respect for Claudius.97

What does Claudius’ normal gait say about his character? Claudius’ symptoms are more apparent when he is emotional, and especially when he is angry. O'Sullivan states that a wealthy

Roman man walks with slow (but not too slow) movements, while his slave counterpart moves hastily.98 The following passage records Claudius’ angry reaction at the mock battle at Lake

Fucinus when the participants would not fight:

diu cunctatus an omnes igni ferroque absumeret, tandem e sede sua prosiluit ac per

ambitum lacus non sine foeda vacillatione discurrens partim minando partim adhortando

ad pugnam compulit (Lives of the Caesars 5.21.6)

97 cum interim, quanquam hoc modo agenti, numquam aut officium hominum aut reverentia publice defuit (Lives of the Caesars 5.5) (in the meantime, although in behaving in this way he was never lacking the kindness of the people and respect of the public). 98 O'Sullivan 2011,11-33.

51 For a long time he delayed whether to kill them all by fire or sword; at last he jumped

from his seat and running across the edge of the tank with ugly wobbling gait he forced

them to fight partly by threats and partly with encouragement.

Here it is shown that in his rage, Claudius not only jumped (prosiluit) but also runs (discurrens) which makes his limp apparent. Although this account of anger is not as extreme as a drooling animal, it does present Claudius as a man of low social status. This passage is yet another example of how Claudius appears undignified when he moves. Perhaps it was this kind of behavior (movement), perceived as low-status, rather than the disability itself which led

Augustus to the decision of not allowing Claudius to sit in the Imperial box.99

As shown throughout these passages, it is evident that physiognomic traits are emphasized. The purpose of this, as presented by Gladhill, is “to mold a corporeal ecphrasis”.

This term coined by Gladhill means that Suetonius’ physical descriptions of each Caesar is a

“visual” method used to reflect his reign.100 This interpretation of the physical descriptions reinforces the concept that the corpus principis is synonymous with the corpus imperii.101

Reception of Claudius’ Disability in Later Life

Now that Claudius’ physical appearance and what his appearance implies has been explored in closer detail, I will discuss how Claudius was treated in his later life because of these factors.

99 Nec ullo spectaculi genere communior aut remissior erat, adeo ut oblatos victoribus aureos prolata sinistra pariter cum vulgo voce digitisque numeraret. (Lives of the Caesars 5.21.6) (And he was not more secure or more relaxed at any type of spectacle, to such an extent that with his left hand brought forward, together with the common people, counted the aurei award to the victors with his voice and fingers). 100 Gladhill 2012, 319. In this article, Gladhill shows how the physical descriptions in Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars show a deterioration through the succession of the Julio-Claudian . 101 Gladhill 2012, 345.

52 It was not until his nephew, Caligula, was Emperor that Claudius had the major political role of consul:

Sub Gaio demum fratris filio secundam existimationem circa initia imperii omnibus

lenociniis colligente honores auspicatus consulatum gessit una per duos menses

(Lives of the Caesars 5.7)

finally, under Gaius his nephew, who strove for esteem by every flattery in the beginning

of his rule, Claudius started his honors, and held the consulship together with (Gaius) for

two

Claudius was the only male family member alive, so Caligula chose him to be consul in order to maintain the dynastic image of the influence surrounding the Principate. This political role as consul, which was bestowed without any previous major political positions, finally gave

Claudius the prestige of being a true member of the Imperial family, prestige gained not only through Caligula, but because of his brother’s reputation as well.102

The political power of being consul as well as the legacy of his brother could not spare

Claudius from insults: Nec eo minus contumeliis obnoxius vixit (Lives of the Caesars 5.8) (None the less he lived exposed to insults). Although Suetonius does not record the reason for the insults which Claudius endured in his later life, for the purpose of this thesis such insults are discussed as if they were due to his disability. As has been discussed the mockery of Claudius occurred throughout the biography in his early life by family members (3.2), later when he became Emperor (15.4 and 38.3) and even to some extent in his physical description (30).

102 praeseditque nonnumquam spectaculis in Gai vicem, adclamante populo: “Feliciter” partim “patruo imperatoris” partim “Germanici fratri!” (Lives of the Caesars 5.8) (and sometimes he presided over the spectacles in place of Gaius with the people exclaiming, "prosperity for the uncle of the Emperor" sometimes "the brother of Germanicus")

53 However, there are episodes of mockery towards Claudius which occurred during the reign of

Caligula. The first two examples of such mockery took place during a cena:

Nam et si paulo serius ad praedictam cenae horam occurrisset, non nisi aegre et circuito

demum triclinio recipiebatur (Lives of the Caesars 5.8)

for even if he had arrived at the determined time for dinner a little too late, he was

eventually accepted with difficulty after circling the dining room

et quotiens post cibum addormisceret, quod ei fere accidebat, olearum aut palmularum

ossibus incessebatur (Lives of the Caesars 5.8)

and if ever he would fall asleep after a meal, which generally happened to him, he would

be assaulted with the pits of olives or dates

These episodes of mockery may have a twofold explanation; the first explanation that the mockery was an example of the lighthearted humor which simply reflected on the relaxed dinner environment.103 The second explanation of the mockery of Claudius was to displace the fear and embarrassment which able-bodied people experience when encountering a person with a disability with laughter.104

There are two other instances of mockery which occurred at the cena. The motive of such jokes may be more pertinent to this thesis:

interdum ferula flagrove velut per ludum excitabatur a copreis

(Lives of the Caesars 5.8)

sometimes he was awakened by buffoons with a cane or whip, as in a game

103 Garland 1995, 83-84. 104 Garland 1995, 75.

54 Solebant et manibus stertentis socci induci, ut repente expergefactus faciem sibimet

confricaret (Lives of the Caesars 5.8)

They even used to put slippers on the hands of the snoring Claudius so that when he

suddenly stirred up he would rub his face

These two jokes were reflective of another theory of mockery towards individuals with disabilities. This theory suggests that the atypical physicality and behavior of the subject of the humor provokes in their counterparts the secret desire to oppress, which takes the form of sublimated aggression.105 Thus by Claudius being treated like an animal or having feminine shoes put on him in the presence of dinner guests is a humorous way of putting Claudius in his place: that of someone or something which still must be controlled, despite his political power.106

Here is an example of the same type of mockery, but in a political setting during his consulship:

Atque ex eo numquam non in senatu novissimus consularium sententiam dixit,

ignominiae causa post omnis interrogatus (Lives of the Caesars 5.9.2)

and from that time on he always gave his opinion in the Senate last of all, being asked

after all the rest for the purpose of dishonoring him

The speaking order in the Senate began with the consuls. The consuls designate spoke first, followed by the ex-consuls.107 The fact that the Senate forced Claudius to give his sententia last among the consuls demonstrates that even though Claudius held the office of consul he was still deemed unworthy of this role in the Senate.

105 Garland 1995, 75. 106 Socci were footwear worn by women or effeminate men. Suetonius records that the Emperor Caligula wore these (c.f. Lives of the Caesars 4. 52). Suetonius does not indicate that these socci were Caligula's. 107 of 9 BC

55 Thus far in this discussion, it has been apparent that Claudius was mocked by others for his disability, but now let’s look at when Claudius mocks himself. The self-derision occurs after

Claudius showed apathy towards the Ostians who were petitioning him by replying, “Quid, ego tibi Telegenius videor?” et: “λάλει καὶ μὴ θίγγανε” (What, do I seem like Telegenius to you?

“Scold me, but don’t touch!”) (Lives of the Caesars 5.40.3). Telegenius is a figure of folly who is otherwise unknown.108 Although nothing else is known about Telegenius, what Claudius says regarding not being beaten seems reflective of the treatment of individuals with disabilities.109

Since Claudius compared himself to Telegenius, who presumably had a disability, he diffused the tension concerning the Ostians’ petitions by drawing attention to his disability, but did it in a manner which also reminded the people that he was still ultimately the Emperor, the man who possesses authority over them.110

Claudius’ reference to Telegenius is reminiscent of what became of the literary character,

Thersites, in Homer’s . Thersites is described as:

Ugly was he beyond all men who came to Ilios: he was bandy-legged and lame in one

foot, and his shoulders were rounded, hunching together over his chest, and above them

his head was pointed, and a scant stubble grew on it. 111

He is beaten by Odysseus after he tells a crowd of soldiers that they should retreat from aiding king (2.225-242). There is no indication that Claudius compared himself to

108 Suetonius 1914, 73. 109 C.f. Lives of the Caesars 5.2.2 and Laes 2008. This treatment is also seen in the Apocolocyntosis when Claudius is sentenced to his eternal punishment of being beaten by Caligula: Apparuit subito C. Caesar et petere illum in servitutem coepit; producit testes, qui illum viderant ab illo flagris, ferulis, colaphis vapulantem. (15.2) (Suddenly appeared and begins to seek him for a slave; he produces witnesses, who had seen him(Claudius) being beaten by him (Gaius) with whips, canes and fists.) Perhaps this punishment (being treated like a person with a disability for eternity) is an indication of what the gods thought Claudius was worthy of, instead of being a god. This passage is also reminiscent of Caligula’s treatment of Claudius in life (c.f. Lives of the Caesars 5.8). 110 Garland 1995, 75. 111 Iliad 2.216-219. Translation from the Iliad is by A. T. Murray in Loeb Classical Library vol. 170.

56 Thersites, however it would be a plausible deduction considering the parallels between the two figures. This speculation is pertinent to what Suetonius records after Claudius’ remark about

Telegenius:

multaque talia etiam privatis deformia, nedum principi, neque infacundo neque indocto,

immo etiam pertinaciter liberalibus studiis dedito. (Lives of the Caesars 5.40.3)

And [he said] many such things base for even private citizens, not to mention an emperor

neither without eloquence nor ignorance, but on the contrary devoted to the liberal studies

This statement reveals how Claudius attempts to demonstrate not only his authority, but also his intelligence by referring to figures, such as Telegenius, to support his argument. However,

Suetonius uses these remarks and by consequence Claudius’ knowledge against him in order to make him appear incapable of having authority, just as Seneca does in the Apocolocyntosis when

Claudius’ love of Greek is used to discredit him.112

Conclusion

Suetonius’ biography of Claudius was written to give the reader access into the fourth

Emperor of Rome’s life and personality rather than just his political career. It is through the genre of biography that the reader learns not only about how Claudius’ disability affected his childhood, but also how it affected his image as Emperor. Throughout Claudius’ lifetime, members of the Imperial family expressed anxiety concerning his disability. This anxiety is brought on by the fact that the image of the health/appearance the state of Rome was reflected health/appearance of the Imperial family.

112 C.f. Apocolocyntosis 5.4. See page 15- 17.

57 Throughout the biography, Claudius is cast aside, ridiculed and criticized because of all the symptoms of his disability. It is through the all-encompassing nature of Suetonius’ biography that the reader is able to learn about a variety of aspects of Claudius’ disability and how they would have manifested in his life. For example, Claudius’ gait is not only mentioned in the physical description (30) when it’s simply that, a description, but also is described with a scenario attached to it (21.6).

Although Suetonius’ work has been criticized for its use of sources, it is these sources that bring Claudius’ disability to life. What I mean by this is that since Suetonius utilized such sources as memories and letters, people must have seen Claudius in person. Thus whether they exaggerated the symptoms or not, there must have been something noticeably different about

Claudius for people to recall. In addition to verifying the physical appearance of Claudius, these sources ironically confirm the Imperial family’s anxiety about how Claudius’ disability would impact people’s perceptions of him as well as the Principate.

58 Dio’s Roman History

The eighty book corpus of Dio’s Roman History covers the origins of Rome to the events of the reign of Alexander Severus and Dio’s own retirement. Dio’s work captured the attention of as well as Greek speakers in the Senate and those in Greek cities such as

Nicomedia, Pergamum and Smyrna, with whom he had ties in his personal life and career. The purpose behind Roman History was to ensure that Romans as well as others would not lack the knowledge of Roman achievements. Roman history for Dio had a general application, shown through the good and secure rule of Rome. The Principate demonstrated a magnitude and diversity which the Republic could not sustain.113

A problem which arises when using Dio’s Roman History as a source on Claudius’ reign, as well as the other Julio-Claudians, is the state of the text; Roman History survives in fragments.

Only about half of Dio’s original text concerning Claudius’ reign remains (60.2.1-60.28.3), the rest of it is constructed from excerpts and epitomes from the Byzantine period. Since these excerpts/epitomes are simply indicators of what Dio wrote, it is difficult to determine what additional information was in the original.114 All the passages used in this thesis come from

Dio’s original text.

Since Dio lived about a century after the Julio-Claudians, he had to rely on written sources rather than contemporary oral sources to construct his history. There are many

113 Swan 2004, 7-9. All translations of Dio’s Roman History come from the Loeb Classical Library vol.175 unless otherwise noted. 114 Edmondson 1992, 28-29.

59 similarities between Dio’s account of Claudius in Roman History and as well as

Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars, but there are also inconsistencies. Therefore, Dio likely made use of other sources available to him such as ’ Antiquities of the Jews and The Jewish

Wars. There were also sources at Dio’s disposal which now only survive in part, or are completely lost to us including Claudius’ own autobiography, ’s Imperial Lives, the histories of Pliny the Elder, , and Cluvius Rufus. The Apocolocyntosis, which is referenced in 60.35.3-4, was another source for Dio. The variety of sources which Dio utilizes gives the Roman History an unevenness in terms of its writing .115

Dio structured Roman History as an annalistic work with some biographical information.

The general format of each Emperor’s reign begins with describing his character, and the traits he is most known for. Then there is a transition to the annals, followed by portents of the

Emperor’s death, a brief summary of his character, and finally a chronological calculation of the

Emperor’s life and reign. This structure not only allows Dio to describe the Emperor’s reign in detail, but allows him to emphasize the Emperor’s character as well.116

Dio wrote Roman History in a way that demonstrates the importance of the divine and how it plays into history. The relationship between human and divine will is captured throughout the work and shows a well ordered cosmopolis under the Good Emperors. Along with an emphasis on portents, Dio uses the phrase theia to describe human affairs played out under divine providence. The term pronoia is in fact used to describe Claudius, whose

115 Edmondson 1992, 30-32. 116 Edmondson 1992, 36.

60 forethought ensured the Roman grain supply through the construction of the Ostian harbor.117

The work does not reference Claudius himself as a portent.

Although Dio mentions Claudius’ disability, it does not have a prominent role in the way

Claudius is described, as it did in the Apocolocyntosis and the Lives of the Caesars. Dio was concerned about recording the history and the achievements of the Emperor Claudius. To him

Claudius’ disability itself had little impact on how he ruled the Empire.

As discussed in the introduction, Dio places less emphasis on Claudius’ disability compared to Seneca and Suetonius. In fact, in Section 60. 2.2, where Claudius’ disability is first mentioned, Dio writes:

In mental ability he was by no means inferior, as his faculties had been in constant

training (in fact, he had actually written some historical treatises).

This statement is a contrast to the descriptions of the “fatuus” and the “stultus” in the

Apocolocyntosis and the Lives of the Caesars. Dio, in fact, references the histories which

Claudius wrote. These histories are mentioned in the Lives of the Caesars, but some are criticized for their literary style.118

Dio also writes in the same section that Claudius “…was sickly in body, so that his head and hands shook slightly” as Seneca and Suetonius describe, but unlike the latter authors, Dio minimizes these symptoms. Instead of Claudius shaking his head constantly, he shakes it only

117 Cf. On the occasion of a severe famine he considered the problem of providing an abundant food-supply, not only for that particular crisis but for all future time. Roman History (60.11.1). 118 Cf. Composuit et octo volumina, magis inepte quam ineleganter; item Ciceronis defensionem adversus Asini Galli libros satis eruditam. (Lives of the Caesars 5.41.3). He also composed eight volumes about his own life which were more tasteless than clumsy. Likewise he composed “Defense of Cicero against the Books of Asinus Gallus which was skilled enough. Other histories which Claudius wrote are discussed in Lives of the Caesars 5.41-42, but are not criticized.

61 slightly. 119 The same comparison applies to his hands. In the Apocolocyntosis, Claudius’ weakened (soluta) hand was connected with an act of violence, but here it is simply among a list of symptoms.120

Next, Dio writes, “…his voice was also faltering”, which gives the impression that

Claudius’ voice is weak, rather than lacks the ability to pronounce words properly.121 It is due to the nature of Claudius’ voice that Dio records:

…he did not himself read all the measures that he introduced before the Senate,

but would give them to the to read, though at first, at least, he was

generally present. (Roman History 60.2.2)

The observation that Claudius had documents read on his behalf is also demonstrated in the Lives of the Caesars after Claudius loses control of his laughter.122 Unlike Suetonius, Dio does not indicate that the need for a designated reader occurs from any unbecoming circumstances on Claudius’ part. Jonathan Edmondson indicates in his commentary of Books 58-

63 of Dio’s Roman History that it was a normal phenomenon for two to be appointed as assistants (quaestores Caesaris) to every Emperor.123 The role of quaestors as assistants to every Emperor is significant to this passage since this makes it evident that Claudius was not the only Emperor to be assisted by these quaestores Caesaris. Perhaps Dio mentioned the use of a quaestor in order to emphasize Claudius’ “faltering” voice.

In Section 2.3, Claudius’ leg weakness is indicated:

119 Apocolocyntosis 5.2 and Lives of the Caesars 5.30. See pages 12 and 46 respectively. 120 Apocolocyntosis 6.2. See pages 18-19. 121 Laes 2013, 150. 122Claudius’ laughter is recorded in Lives of the Caesars 5.41.1 and the use of a reader in Lives of the Caesars 5.41.2. See page 48-49. 123 Edmondson 1992, 190.

62 Whatever he did read himself, he usually delivered sitting down. Furthermore, he was the

first of the Romans to use a covered chair, and it is due to his example that to-day not

only the emperors but we ex-consuls as well are carried in chairs; of course, even before

his time Augustus, Tiberius, and some others had been carried in litters such as women

still affect even at the present day.

This passage allows the reader to understand that Claudius breaks away from what one would expect a healthy Roman man to do. During Claudius’ lifetime, he drew attention to his disability by using a covered chair (sella) instead of walking. As Dio records, it became common practice for the Emperor to use a sella and thus it became a symbol of a person’s social status rather than a symbol of physical weakness as it was in Claudius’ time.124 Similar to the passage discussed above, Claudius yet again draws attention to his disability when he receives a triumph for his invasion of Britain. In Roman History, 60.23.1, Dio states, “…he celebrated his triumph.

In this he followed precedent, even ascending the steps of the Capitol on his knees, with his sons-in-law supporting him on either side”.125 This statement notes that Claudius followed precedent and did not do something that was never seen before. Julius Caesar had ascended the steps of the Capitol on his knees, but unlike Claudius, he did so without assistance. Even though

Claudius did follow a tradition, this action was still distinguished because of the presence of those who assisted in carrying out the tradition. Dio also mentions that Claudius read sitting down when he would be expected to stand. However, further along Dio records a scenario where

Claudius breaks from his own pattern and stands:

124 Edmondson 1992, 191. 125 On this occasion … he climbed up the stairs of the Capitol on his knees… The Loeb Classical Library vol.66 Translation of Roman History 43.21.2.

63 In the Senate the emperor would rise himself in case the others had been standing a long

time; for by reason of his ill health he frequently remained seated, as I have related, and

read his advice, if asked for it. (Roman History 60.2.3)

When a member of the Senate was expressing his opinion, he would stand during this time and then remained seated as others gave their opinions. This passage shows that although

Claudius preferred to be seated when he would otherwise be expected to stand, he did stand to address his audience on occasion. In this particular scene, Claudius literally takes a stand in order to make his opinion known among the Senate. The members of the Senate were accustomed to

Claudius sitting down, so it would have captured their attention when he stood. It is plausible to think that Claudius stood on this occasion in order to make the Senate realize that his opinion mattered, especially after others have been talking for a long time.

The rhetorical theorist, , relays an anecdote about Demosthenes in which the latter declares that delivery is the most valuable tool of .126 Without a proper delivery, no speech can reach the audience, no matter how eloquent it may be.127 Claudius was likely aware of this concept when he addressed the Senate on this occasion and wanted to ensure that his performance and message both indicated the same level of importance.128

As expressed throughout this thesis, the Romans associated a man’s physicality with his ability to lead, but now I will explore this emic concept of leadership in more detail. One’s ability to lead, command and control in the Roman culture was first and foremost determined by gender. Only men had a formal role in political life. Later, I will allude to the ways women may

126 Cf. 11.3.6. 127 Gunderson 2000, 92. 128 Gunderson 2000, 89-93. This section discussed how a good oratory performance reveals the inner man to the audience.

64 have had a role in Roman political life. However, just because a person’s genetic makeup indicates that the said individual is a man, this does not make him masculine in the eyes of the

Roman culture. As Jennifer Larson states, “personal dignity, bodily integrity and specific details of one’s personal appearance were all factors in individual self-assessment and in men’s evaluation of one another’s masculinity”.129 This raises the question of whether it was Claudius’ disability or apparent lack of masculinity which caused him criticism. I suggest that it is a blend of the two. It is evident that the way Claudius was perceived was shaped largely in part by his disability. However, it was the Roman ideals of masculinity which made Claudius appear unable to lead.

In the conclusion of section 2, Dio reveals what he believes to be the crux of Claudius’ shortcomings:

It was not these infirmities, however, that caused the deterioration in Claudius so much as

it was the freedmen and the women with whom he associated; for he, more conspicuously

than any of his peers, was ruled by slaves and by women. (Roman History 60.2.4)

This passage demonstrates yet again that Dio was aware of Claudius’ disability, but rather than blaming his shortcomings on his disability, they are blamed on the perception that he was ruled by freedmen and women. According to Dio and others, these individuals, who were social inferiors to Claudius, dominated him. A similar point was expressed in the Lives of the

Caesars (5.4.5), where Augustus insists that Claudius’ gait will improve when he associates with the proper people.130

Dio continues to discuss the impact that Claudius’ household had on his demeanor:

129 Larson 2004, 86. 130Lives of the Caesars 5.4.5. See pages 50.

65 From a child he had been reared a constant prey to illness and great terror, and for that

reason had feigned a stupidity greater than was really the case (a fact that he himself

admitted in the senate); and he had lived for a long time with his grandmother Livia and

for another long period with his mother Antonia and with the freedmen, and moreover he

had had many amours with women. Hence, he had acquired none of the qualities befitting

a freeman, but, though ruler of all the Romans and their subjects, had become himself a

slave. They would take advantage of him particularly when he was inclined to drink or to

sexual intercourse, since he applied himself to both these vices insatiably and when so

employed was exceedingly easy to master. Moreover, he was afflicted by cowardice,

which often so overpowered him that he could not reason out anything as he ought. They

seized upon this failing of his, too, to accomplish many of their purposes; for by

frightening him they could use him fully for their own ends, and could at the same time

inspire the rest with great terror. To give but a single example, once, when a large

number of persons were invited to dinner on the same day by Claudius and by these

associates, the guests neglected Claudius on one pretence or another, and flocked around

the others. (Roman History 60. 2.5-7)

These passages demonstrate that Dio attributed Claudius' shortcomings not to the disability itself, but rather to the close and the manipulative relationships of those surrounding

Claudius. Since the nature of Claudius' disability kept him out of public life, he developed close relationships with those in the household.131 When a person has a disability, there is a possibility he will come to depend on those around him for some level of assistance to navigate through the world. If this phenomenon applied to Claudius’ situation, it would appear as though those close

131 See pages 33ff.

66 to Claudius controlled him. This concept is similar to how the Romans viewed the relationship between the knowledge of one’s body (essentially the knowledge of how to control one’s body) and power. It was thought that if a man was able to demonstrate mastery of his body while speaking, he would have the power to command his audience, whoever that might be.132 The knowledge/power relationship is seen in 60.2.5-7, where Claudius is described as a slave in

Rome rather than its leader. This paradox is due to the apparent control Claudius’ wives and freedmen had over him because of his apparent lack of control over his body.133

After the description of Claudius' relationships between his grandmother, mother and freedmen, Dio indicates that Claudius had numerous affairs with women. At first glance, this appears to be simply an example of one of Claudius' vices, but with further analysis one can see that this description speaks to the image of masculinity which he tried to make for himself. Leon briefly discusses that Claudius’ marriages are related to the exclusion he faced due to his disability stating the Claudius “…was anxious to be regarded as a normal member of society”.134

Leon suggests that Claudius had many wives and mistresses who were not mentioned in the article to fulfill social norms. What if Claudius had the same anxiety towards male partners? Dio records that Claudius had affairs with women; there is no mention of male partners. Suetonius makes this distinction clearer by writing, Libidinis in feminas profusissimae, marum omnino expers (While he was excessive in his desire for women, he had absolutely nothing to do with

132 Gunderson 2000, 59-86 . 133 Suetonius records a similar phenomenon: Sed et haec et cetera totumque adeo ex parte magna principatum non tam suo quam uxorum libertorumque arbitrio administravit, talis ubique plerumque, qualem esse eum aut expediret illis aut liberet. (Lives of the Caesars 5.25.5) ( But both these things and the rest and in fact almost the whole Principate was not administered so much by his own judgment as by the judgment of his wives and freedmen.). His, ut dixi, uxoribusque addictus, non principem, sed ministrum egit, compendio cuiusque horum vel etiam studio aut libidine honores exercitus impunitates supplicia largitus est (Lives of the Caesars 5.29.1) (As I said he was enslaved to the freedmen and wives, and he did not play the part of the princeps, but a servant. For the profit of each of them or even out of their zeal or a desire, he lavished honors of the army, pardons and punishments). 134 Leon 1948, 85.

67 men) (33.2). In the Roman culture, it was acceptable for a man to have either female or male sexual partners as long as the man of higher standing (i.e. Claudius) was the one penetrating, because this action displayed the man’s dominance.135 It is reasonable to argue that Claudius refrained from having male partners because he knew that his weak physicality would suggest that he was the passive partner. Thus, in order to compensate for the impression which Claudius creates due to his physiognomy, he avoided sexual contact with males. Claudius' strictly heterosexual relationships thwarted any possibility of a rumor that the Emperor was dominated in his sexual endeavors, even if he was controlled by this vice.

Later in the work, Dio records an instance where Claudius is indirectly the equated to a slave rather than a ruler:

While these events were happening in the city, , a senator of great renown,

made a campaign against Britain; for a certain Bericus, who had been driven out of the

island as the result of an uprising, had persuaded Claudius to send a force thither. Thus it

came about that Plautius undertook this campaign; but he had difficulty in inducing his

army to advance beyond Gaul. For the soldiers were indignant at the thought of carrying

on a campaign outside the limits of the known world, and would not yield him obedience

until Narcissus, who had been sent out by Claudius, mounted the tribunal of Plautius and

attempted to address them. Then they became much angrier at this and would not allow

Narcissus to say a word, but suddenly shouted with one accord the well-known cry, “Io

Saturnalia” (for at the festival of Saturn the slaves don their masters’ dress and hold

festival), and at once right willingly followed Plautius. (Roman History 60.19.1-3)

135 Gleason 1995, 65.

68 The soldiers would not obey their commanding officer when they were directed to advance, but waited until Narcissus, the freedmen of Claudius, gave the order. It could be argued that the soldiers obeyed Narcissus because he was simply fulfilling his duties as a freedman of the Emperor (obeying the orders he was given to have the soldiers advance). However the soldiers equated Narcissus to the Emperor by proclaiming the Saturnalia.

As Dio expresses above in 60.2.7, Claudius was subject to not only his disability, but also great terror. Although Dio does not specify what of this great terror was, it is reasonable to speculate that this referred to the danger of assassination which one would have experienced as a member of the Imperial family. This theory is supported by a passage which

Dio writes regarding Caligula’s reign, “And even those whom he admitted to his presence he did not deign to treat with any respect; indeed, he would have killed Claudius, had he not felt contempt for him, inasmuch as the latter, partly by his nature and partly by deliberate intent, gave the impression of great stupidity” (Roman History 59.23.5). A similar passage is recorded in Suetonius’ account, however unlike Dio who writes and accepts that Claudius’ stupidity was exaggerated, Suetonius does not.136 The combination of Claudius’ disability and terror is connected to his manipulative relationships because, as strange as it sounds, it is possible that

Claudius relied on his relationships with his inferiors for protection from the threats which accompanied Imperial life. The women and freedmen could have taken advantage of Claudius’ dependence as well as his power in order to gain influence in the Empire, as Dio records.

In section 3, Dio continues his discussion on the connection between Claudius’ weaknesses and his control:

136 Lives of the Caesars 5.38.3. See pages 36-37.

69 Though, generally speaking, he was such as I have described, still he did not a few things

in a proper manner whenever he was free from the afore-said weaknesses and was master

of himself. (Roman History 60.3.1)

This statement is similar to what Augustus said regarding the connection between Claudius’ mind and his nobility.137 Dio immediately follows the statement by indicating that Claudius used careful judgment, something not emphasized in the Apocolocyntosis or the Lives of the Caesars.

He references the mistreatment of Claudius during the reigns of Tiberius and Caligula:

As for those who had wronged or insulted him when he was a private citizen,—and there

were many who had behaved thus toward him, both because he had been held in no

esteem, and also, more especially, in order to please either Tiberius or Gaius,—he did not

prosecute them on any fictitious charge, but if he found them guilty of some other crime,

he would take vengeance on them at the same time for their former abuse.

(Roman History 60. 3.7)

Again, Dio makes the reader aware of Claudius’ disability, but instead of highlighting the disability, he highlights Claudius’ balanced judgment. This passage demonstrates that Claudius had an opportunity to make up a charge for those he may have held a grudge against due to insults/abuse they subjected him to because of his disability, but instead he showed restraint and only sought justice if they were guilty of an actual crime. The restraint in judgment which

137 Cf. Misellus ἀτυχεῖ· nam ἐν τoῖς σπoυδαίoις, ubi non aberravit eius animus, satis apparet ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτoῦ εὐγένεια.” (Lives of the Caesars 5.4.5) The poor little fellow is unfortunate, for in serious pursuits, when his mind does not go astray, the nobility of his character is apparent enough.

70 Claudius shows here is a form the Roman virtue moderatio, which as discussed above shows that he was a balanced man and thus able to be a balanced leader.138

Conclusion

Dio wrote Roman History to showcase Roman achievements and the secure rule of Rome for each Emperor that he wrote about. It was Dio’s desire to describe the greatness of Claudius’

Principate and thus there is little importance placed on Claudius’ disability itself, but rather emphasis on how his dependence on others due to his disability affected his subjects’ perception of the Emperor Claudius.

Dio mentions the disability when it caused Claudius to stand apart from the social norm of what a Roman leader ought to be. Claudius is portrayed as physically weak as well as subservient. Both these characteristics do not match the Roman ideals of masculinity. Despite these adverse qualities, which symbolize a lack of control, Dio indicates that Claudius tried to compensate for this physical weakness and perceived domination.

Overall, Claudius’ disability is presented impartially in Dio’s Roman History. It is

Claudius’ apparent lack of masculinity which brings about his faults. Dio sought to display the qualities of a good Roman leader. It is the Roman ideals of masculinity (control over one’s body) which allows a man to demonstrate his authority over others and thus makes a good leader. Since

Dio demonstrated that Claudius did not always represent the ideals of Roman masculinity, either directly or indirectly due to his disability, he sometimes lacked the qualities of a good leader.

138 See page 19.

71 Conclusions

As demonstrated throughout this thesis, Claudius was portrayed as a man incapable of rule because of his disability. Although each source described Claudius in slightly different ways due to the purpose of each particular work, each possessed similarities to one another. In concluding this thesis, I will discuss what the Apocolocyntosis, Lives of the Caesars and Roman

History emphasize about Claudius’ disability and how it is connected to his authority. Then I will present selections of a letter Claudius himself wrote to the Jews in Alexandria in order to demonstrate what the reality may have been.

The physical symptoms of Claudius which are consistent in all three sources are his speech impediment, atypical gait and shaking head and hand(s). As mentioned above these symptoms are described differently in each source but are a part of Claudius’ physicality to some degree.

Each source generally does not simply list Claudius’ symptoms; the symptoms are often connected to a scenario which showcases his temperament (anger, passivity). It is because of this apparent association between the symptoms and temperament that Claudius is portrayed as a beast or even a monster, which lacks control, in Lives of the Caesars and the Apocolocyntosis respectively. Even though Roman History does not equate Claudius to a creature, it does represent him as being controlled by individuals who were thought to be his social inferiors.

Since Claudius was portrayed as needing to be controlled, based on his physicality, he was therefore portrayed as possessing little control. The importance of a man’s physicality and his

72 ability to lead, and how this connection was relevant to Claudius because of his disability was reiterated throughout this thesis. However, there is a link missing between physicality and leadership. This missing link is the ideal of Roman masculinity. As discussed in the section on

Dio’s Roman History, only men had a formal role in political life. Even though Claudius had the birthright to rule because he was a man of the Imperial family, he still lacked the bodily control which helped make up a Roman man’s masculinity.

A man’s ability to control his body meant he was able to control others. Self-control as a sign of masculinity went beyond physicality to control of desires and emotions, but these were related, because emotions are revealed through facial expressions, gestures and so forth. In

Claudius’ case, it seems that he was criticized for indulging his appetites, and for showing spontaneous emotions, like laughing. Although Dio’s Roman History is explicit about how

Claudius did not conform to the Roman ideals of masculinity, the other two sources imply this flaw by merging it with the disability .139 In the Apocolocyntosis 5.2, Seneca records that

Claudius dragged his right foot.140 This section indicates to the reader both a physical description of what Claudius’ gait may have looked like as well as suggesting that Claudius fell short of the masculine bodily ideal.141 Likewise, in Lives of the Caesars 5.2.2, Suetonius records that the

Imperial family placed little emphasis on Claudius’ toga virilis ceremony. This event could have happened in the manner in which it did, because the family was ashamed of Claudius’ disability, but more importantly of the lack of masculinity which was a result of the disability.142

Claudius had a lack of bodily control brought on by the symptoms of his disability, which people presumed would always affect him to some degree. The nature of Claudius’ symptoms

139 See page 63ff. 140 See page 12. 141 Gleason 1995, 59. 142 See page 40-41.

73 meant that he did not conform to the Roman ideals of masculinity which were thought to be matters of self-control. Claudius’ lack of bodily control due to his speech impediment, atypical gait and shaking head and hand(s) demonstrate an emic perspective, specifically the Roman perspective on disability. The emic perspective is reflected throughout this thesis because it is the manner in which these symptoms affected Claudius’ ability to represent the image of what the

Romans thought that a man in leadership should be which takes the brunt of the criticism in these three sources rather than the symptoms alone. It is this conflict between what Claudius did not have much control over and what he should have complete control over which ultimately yielded the impression he was incapable of ruling the Roman Empire because he was unable to rule himself.

Now that I have discussed how Seneca, Suetonius and Dio described Claudius, I will present selections of a letter which Claudius wrote to the Alexandrians. The papyrus was discovered in Philadelphia, and was acquired by the in 1921.143 Harold

Bell first published the letter in 1924.144 The letter was written in A.D. 41, which was also the first year of Claudius’ reign. The content of the letter includes honors of Claudius as well as to his family, citizenship and privileges, concerns about government structure and the relations between the Jews and other inhabitants of Alexandria stirred up by riots. In closing I will discuss how the letter demonstrates his ability to lead as the Emperor of Rome.145

A letter can be understood as a substitute for the sender’s physical presence 146 This concept is similar to how a man’s true self is revealed in the manner in which he speaks.147 Thus

143 Stearns 1925 ,568. 144 Bell 1924, 1ff. 145 Adams 2009. This website provides an adapted version of the 1934 translation edited by Hunt and Edgar. 146 Larson 2004, 89. 147 See footnote 128 .

74 a letter should likewise reflect the true self of the sender. This means since Claudius had physical weaknesses, it would be expected that his writing would be a reflection on his physicality.

Although the extant letter contains spelling errors, these were the likely introduced by a copyist and do not reflect on Claudius’ abilities, given our knowledge of Claudius’ other writing accomplishments.148 In addition to demonstrating Claudius’ writing skills, the letter also demonstrates that Claudius possessed judgment and leadership abilities.

First, Claudius decided to allow the privileges given to the Alexandrians in the past, following the precedent of Augustus:

All those who have become epheboi up to the time of my Principate I confirm and

maintain in the possession of the Alexandrian citizenship with all the privileges and

indulgences enjoyed by the city, excepting those who have contrived to

become epheboi by beguiling you, though born of servile mothers. And it is equally my

will that all the other favors shall be confirmed which were granted to you by former

and and , as the Deified Augustus also confirmed them. It is my

will that the neokoroi of the Temple of the Deified Augustus in Alexandria shall be

chosen by lot in the same way as those of the Deified Augustus in Canopus are chosen by

lot

Second, Claudius was cautious in the matter of restricting the government and sought more information before making a decision:

Concerning the Boule, what your custom may have been under the ancient kings I have

no means of saying, but that you had no senate under the earlier Augusti, you are well

148 Bell 1924, 1-2. Bell explains that he discovered the transcript of the letter on the back of a tax register.

75 aware. As this is the first broaching of a novel project, whose utility to the city and to my

government is not evident, I have written to Aemilius Rectus to hold an inquiry and

inform me whether in the first place it is right that a Boule should be constituted, and, if it

should be right to create one, in what matter this is to be done.

Third, Claudius demonstrated balanced judgment when determining the rights and privileges of the Jews in Alexandria.

Wherefore, once again I conjure you that, on the one hand, the Alexandrians show

themselves forebearing and kindly towards the Jews who for many years have dwelt in

the same city, and dishonor none of the rites observed by them in the worship of their

god, but allow them to observe their customs as in the time of the Deified Augustus,

which customs I also, after hearing both sides, have sanctioned; and on the other hand, I

explicitly order the Jews not to agitate for more privileges than they formerly

possessed…

In line with my argument, Harold Bell says that Claudius’ decisions “betray no trace whatever of any weakness of intellect” but rather are “reasonable and well grounded”. Bell also states, “from this letter one would never suspect that Claudius was weak- minded”.149 H. Stuart

Jones in Claudius and the Jewish Question at Alexandria explains that by expressing the rights of the Jews to worship (utilizing a precedent of Augustus) and setting strict orders on both parties at Alexandria in order to prevent any future violations of the peace after the edict, Claudius acts as a judge who has heard both sides of the case.150

149 Bell 1924, 22. 150 Jones 1926, 35.

76 Despite what some scholars think about Claudius’ judgment displayed in the letter, there are those who do not agree. M. Engers argues that the letter is “characteristic of weakness and a lack of independence of Claudius that within so short a space of time he should take an entirely changed the view of an important matter” when compared to a letter referenced by Josephus which also discusses the racial conflict in Alexandria.151 I would have to dispute this point because even though it is evident that Claudius based some of his judgments on what has been done in the past, it is these judgments which demonstrate his leadership abilities. Claudius does not take away privileges which have already been established, in regard to both Alexandrian citizenship and well as the Jews in Alexandria. In doing this he does not create tension between his Principate and these two groups, which could lead to more riots in Alexandria. Additionally,

Claudius also states that he has heard both sides of the case in regard to the conflict between the

Jews and other Alexandrians. Therefore Claudius’ decision to allow them to keep their privileges they already possess, but not allow them ask for more demonstrates that he did not simply make an arbitrary choice without thinking about the implications it would have on all the people involved, including his Principate.

It is possible that a secretary helped Claudius write the letter, but scholars tend to agree that it was written by Claudius himself.152 The reader is able to see Claudius’ personality present in the letter. Claudius’ anger is shown when he explains to the Jews what will happen if his

Imperial orders to cease the riots are not obeyed, “And I tell you once and for all that unless you put a stop to this ruinous and obstinate enmity against each other, I shall be driven to show what a benevolent can be when turned to righteous indignation.” After Claudius informs the reader that no Jews order to be admitted to Alexandria “who came down the river from Egypt or

151 Engers 1925, mentioned and summarized by Jones, 1926, 34-35 . Cf. Josephus AJ 19.280-85. 152 Osgood 2011, 16-17.

77 Syria, a proceeding which will compel me to conceive serious suspicions”, his anger and leadership appear again when he writes, “Otherwise I will by all means take vengeance on them as fomenters of which is a general plague infecting the whole world.” The two statements discussed in this paragraph, along with the decisions which Claudius made in this letter, reveal that he was not only aware of affairs of the Empire which he was governing, but was confident that his decisions were made in the best interest for the Empire.

The likelihood that the people of Alexandria, as well as the other provinces across the

Empire, were aware that Claudius had a disability was probably low, especially if the only representation they had of him were Imperial letters and idealized statues.153 Even if the people of the provinces somehow knew about the Emperor’ condition, they probably would not have given it much thought because the correspondence Claudius had with the provinces revealed his true self to be a man of Imperial auctoritas and dignitas.

There is a distinct difference between the balanced judgments which Claudius articulates in this letter and the descriptions of a weak and subservient man displayed in the

Apocolocyntosis, Lives of the Caesars and Roman History. The latter sources highlight Claudius’ physicality in order to shape how he was viewed as a weak/incapable leader, while the former highlights his leadership abilities. The comparison of these sources allows people to discover that

Claudius was in fact able to perform the leadership duties of a despite what his physical differences implied in the Roman culture.

153 Trentin 2017, 233. There are few representations of disability in Roman artwork. The Roman preferred to represent nearly perfect bodies.

78

Bibliography

2018. Fact Sheets. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Accessed , 2018. http://www.ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/Patient-Caregiver-Education/Fact-Sheets. Adams, John, Paul. 2009. Letter of the Emperor Claudius to the Alexandrians. June 11. Accessed April 5, 2018. https://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/claualex.html. Athanassakis, Apostolos N. 1974. "Some Defense of the Title of Apocolocyntosis for Seneca's Satire." Transactions of the American Philological Association 104: 11-22. Beard, Mary, John North, and Simon Price. 1998. Religions of Rome. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bell, Harold Idris, ed. 1924. Jews and Christians in Egypt: The Jewish Troubles in Alexandria and the Athanasian Controversy. London: British Museum. Boyle, A J. 1999. Seneca the Younger. in The Dictionary of Literary Biography: Ancient Roman Writers. Vol.211 edited by Ward W Briggs. Farmington Hills: Gale Group. Braund, Susanna Morton, and Paula James. 1998. "Quasi Homo:Distortion and Contortion in Seneca's Apocolocyntosis." Arethusa 31 (3): 285-311. Christian, Laes, C.F. Goodey, and M. Lynn Rose. 2013. "Approaching Disabilities a Capite ad Calcem: Hidden Themes in Roman Antiquity." In Disabilities in Roman Antiquty: Disparate Bodies A Capite ad Calcem, edited by Laes Christian, C.F. Goodey and M. Lynn Rose, 1-16. Leiden: Brill. Claudius. 1934. Letter to the Alexandrians. Edited by A.S. Hunt and G.C. Edgar. Translated by Harold Idris Bell. From Select Papyri II Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Department for Economic and Social Development, Divison for Inclusive Social Development. 2018 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). Accessed June 8, 2018. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/about-us/frequently-asked-questions- faqs.html#1. Dio, Cassius. 1916. Roman History IV Books 41-45. Edited by Jeffrey Henderson. Translated by Earnest Cary. Vol. 66 Loeb Classical Library . Cambridge: Harvard University Press. —. 1924. Roman History VII Books 56-60. Edited by Jeffrey Henderson. Translated by Earnest Cary. Vol. 175 Loeb Classical Library . Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Dolansky, Fanny. 2008. "Togam Virilem Sumere: in the Roman World." In Roman Dress and the Fabrics of Roman Culture, edited by Johnathan Edmondson and Alison Keith, 47-70. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

79 Eden, P.T., ed. 1984. Seneca Apocolocyntosis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edmondson, Jonathan. 1992. Dio: The Julio-Claudians Selections from Books 58-63 of the Roman History of . London: The London Association of Classical Teachers. Engers, M. 1925. "Der Brief des Claudius an die Alexandriner." Klio 20: 168-178. Fitch, John G. 2008. Seneca. Oxford: . Garland, Robert. 1995. The Eye of the Beholder : Deformity and Disability in the Graeco-Roman World. London: Bristol Classical. Gevaet, Bert. 2017. "Perfect Roman Bodies: the Stoic View." In Disability in Antiquity, edited by Christian Laes. New York: Routledge. Gevart, Bert, and Christian Laes. 2013. "What's in a Monster? Pliny the Elder, Teratology and Bodily Disability." In Disabilities in Roman Antiquty: Disparate Bodies A Capite ad Calcem, edited by Christian Laes, C.F. Goodey and M. Lynn Rose, 211-230. Leiden: Brill. Gladhill, Bill. 2012. "The Emperor's No Clothes: Suetonius and the Dynamics of Corporeal Ecphrasis." 31 (2): 315-348. Gleason, Maud W. 1995. Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in . Princeton: Princeton University Press. Goodey, C.F., and M. Lynn Rose. 2013. "Mental States, Bodily Distortions and Table Manners: A Guide to Reading 'Intellectual' Disability from Homer to Late Antiquity." In Disabilities in Roman Antiquity: Disparate Bodies A Capite ad Calcem, edited by Christian Laes, C.F. Goodey and M. Lynn Rose, 17-44. Leiden: Brill. Graumann, Alexander Lutz. 2013. "Monstrous Birth and Retrospective Diagnosis." In Disabilities in Roman Antiquity: Disparate Bodies A Capite ad Calcem, edited by Christian Laes, C.F. Goodey and M, Lynn Rose, 181-207. Leiden: Brill. Gunderson, Erik. 2000. Staging Masculinity: The Rhetoric of Performance in the Roman World. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Homer. 1999. Iliad I Books 1-12. 2nd ed. Edited by Jeffrey Henderson. Translated by A T Murray. Vol. 170 Loeb Classical Library . Cambridge: Harvard University Press. —. 1995. Odyssey I Book 1-12. 2nd ed. Edited by Jeffrey Henderson. Translated by A T Murray. Vol. 104 Loeb Classical Library . Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Hurley, Donna W, ed. 2001. Divus Claudius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jones, D Stuart. 1926. "Claudius and the Jewish Question at Alexandria." The Journal of Roman Studies 16: 17- 35. King, Helen. 2005. Health in Antiquity. New York: Routledge.

80 Krotzl, Christian, Karariina Mustakallio, and Jenni Kuuliala. 2005. Infirmity in Antiquity and the : Social and Cultural Approaches to Health, Weakness and Care. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company. Laes, Christian. 2008. "Learning from Silence: Disabled Children in Roman Antiquity." Arctos 42: 85-122. Laes, Christian. 2013. "Silent History? Speech in Roman Antiquity." In Disabilities in Roman Antiquty: Disparate Bodies A Capite ad Calcem, edited by Christian Laes, C.F. Goodey and M. Lynn Rose, 145-180. Leiden: Brill. Larson, Jennifer. 2004. "Paul's Masculinity." Journal of Biblical Literature 123 (1): 85-97. Leon, Ernestine F. 1948 “The Imbecillitas of the Emperor Claudius.” Transactions of the Proceedings of the American Philological Association 79: 79-86. Levick, Barbara. 1990. Claudius. New Haven: Yale University Press. Montserrat, Dominic, ed. 1998. Changing Bodies, Changing Meanings: Studies on the Human Body in Antiquity. New York: Routledge. Murad, Ali. 2010. "A Neurological Mystery from History: The Case of Claudius Caesa." Journal of The History of The Neurosciences 221-227. Osgood, Josiah. 2011. Claudius Caesar: Image and Power in the Early Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Osgood, Josiah. 2007. "Vox and Verba of an Emperor: Claudius, Seneca and Le Prince Ideal." The Classical Journal 102 (4): 329-353. O'Sullivan, Timothy M. 2011. Walking in Roman Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford, :Oxford University Press. 2000 Pulbrook, Martin. 1981. "The Title of Seneca's Satire on Claudius." Hermathena (130/131): 113- 114. Rice, Jane E. 2000, “The Emperor with the Shaking Head: Claudius’ Movement Disorder.” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 93: 198-201. Rohrbacher, David. 2010. "Physiognomics in Imperial Latin Biography." Classical Antiquity 29 (1): 92-116. Rose, Martha L. 2003. The Staff of : Transforming Disability in Ancient . Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Roth, Paul. 1988. Seneca Apocolocyntosis. Bryn Mawr: Bryn Mawr Commentaries. Saller, R. 1980. "Anecdotes as Historial Evidence for the Principate." Greece and Rome 27 (1): 69-83.

81 Scramuzza, Vincent M. 1940. The Emperor Claudius. Cambridge: Harvard University. Seneca. 1913. Apocolocyntosis. Edited by Jeffrey Henderson. Vol. 15 Loeb Classical Library . Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Stearns, Wallace N. 1925. "A Recently Published Papyrus Fragment." The Classical Journal 20 (9): 568- 570. Suetonius. 1914. Suetonius: volume II. Edited by Jeffrey Henderson. Vol. 38 Loeb Classical Library . Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Swan, Peter, Michael. 2004. The Augustan Succession: An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio's Roman History Books 55-56 (9 B.C.-A.D. 14). New York City: Oxford University Press. Toohey, Peter. 2017. "Disability in the Roman Digest." In Disability in Antiquity, edited by Christian Laes, 298-311. New York: Routledge. Trentin, Lisa. 2017. “ The ‘Other’ Romans: Deformed Bodies in the Visual Arts of Rome” In Disability in Antiquity, edited by Christian Laes, 298-311. New York: Routledge. Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew. 1984. Suetonius: The Scholar and his Caesars. New Haven: Yale University Press.

82