© John William Humphrey, 1976 in Presenting This Thesis in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements For
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AN HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON CASSIUS DIO'S ROMAN HISTORY, BOOK 59 (GAIUS CALIGULA) by JOHN WILLIAM HUMPHREY B.A. (Hons.)j University of British Columbia, 1967 M.A., McMaster University, 1968 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Classics) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April, 1976 © John William Humphrey, 1976 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of C^SStC<> The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date Z8 A>yri\ \9>1C ii AN HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON CASSIUS DIO'S ROMAN HISTORY, BOOK 59 (GAIUS CALIGULA) ABSTRACT The reign of the Emperor Gaius was a period of considerable significance in the history of the Roman world. The Augustan Principate had endured virtually unchanged for three generations, and for most of that time the myth of a regenerated Republic was maintained, despite the widespread suspicion and even fear that had clouded the last years of Tiberius' reign. Gaius' accession was greeted as the beginning of a new age, a return to the glory of the reign of Augustus. Yet by the time of his violent murder only four years later, the mood of the people had, according to our sources, changed completely: Gaius in the meantime had become an oriental monarch who delighted in debauchery, murder, and wasteful extravagance. The purpose of this study of Gaius' reign is to test the validity of those traditional charges levelled against the Emperor by hostile sources. Any examination of this period of Roman history is hampered by the loss of the relevant books of Tacitus' Annals, a loss that makes even more important a critical analysis of the surviving accounts, particularly the chronological narrative of Cassius Dio. Augmented by the contemporary treatises of Seneca and Philo, and by the later works of Josephus and Suetonius, Dio's version of the events from A.D. 37 to 41 has been responsible for the perpetuation of the common tradition concerning Gaius. In this commentary on Book 59 of Dio's history--including a study of its similarity to and divergence from other accounts, its generalizations and anachronisms, and its indebtedness to Dio's own experiences as a senator in the later Empire--I have attempted a rational reconstruction of Gaius' Principate free from the prejudices that have coloured its interpretation until recent years. The resulting picture of the Emperor is far different from that painted by our sources, whose own evidence can frequently be used to disprove their own interpretations. Such topics as his administration of the provinces, his campaigns in Germany and Gaul, his fiscal policy, and his behaviour in private and public are shown to be not immoderate but rather balanced and sensible, if subject to a certain immature rashness. Yet by seeing the Principate for what it really was--a monarchy based on military power, in the tradition of the eastern kingdoms of Alexander and his successors — and (after A.D. 39) by openly displaying his contempt for outmoded republican institutions, Gaius damned himself in the eyes of his biographers. His claim to divinity, prompted by the obsequiousness of his courtiers, was to revolt those Romans who still believed the violent propaganda used by Octavian against Antony; and his disregard of the Senate, however justified it may have been, was to prompt our aristocratic sources to consider him in the same light as Nero, Domitian, and Commodus. J . A. ;-j. .• vans Professor of Classics iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi TEXT AND ABBREVIATIONS vii INTRODUCTION Dio the Man 1 Dio the Historian 4 Dio and his Sources 7 Dio and the Principate 17 Notes ........... 22 COMMENTARY Index 26 Chapter One 29 Chapter Two 43 Chapter Three 53 Chapter Four 72 Chapter Five 75 Chapter Six 78 Chapter Seven 89 Chapter Eight 98 Chapter Nine . 114 Chapter Ten 124 Chapter Eleven 135 Chapter Twelve 141 . Chapter Thirteen 148 V Page Chapter Fourteen • . 154 Chapter Fifteen . 159 Chapter Sixteen 164 Chapter Seventeen . 173 Chapter Eighteen 183 Chapter Nineteen 189 Chapter Twenty 196 Chapter Twenty-One ....... 209 Chapter Twenty-Two 218 Chapter Twenty-Three • 232 Chapter Twenty-Four 237 Chapter Twenty-Five ..... 243 Chapter Twenty-Six 257 Chapter Twenty-Seven . 268 Chapter Twenty-Eight 276 Chapter Twenty-Nine 290 Chapter Thirty .... 303 BIBLIOGRAPHY 312 vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank Professors J.A.S. Evans and W.J. Dusing for the supervision which they gave in the preparation of this dissertation: their suggestions and criticism proved most helpful. I am deeply indebted to Professor E.T. Salmon for first encouraging my studies of the early Empire, to Professor G.M. Paul who suggested the subject of this work, and to Professor M.F. McGregor for his unending goodwill. To my colleagues and students at the University of Calgary, and most especially to my wife, I shall always be grateful for the patience and support shown me during the two years when this thesis was being written. J.W.H. vii TEXT The edition of Dio used in this commentary is that of U.P. Boissevain (Berlin: Weidmann, 1895; rpt. 1955). I have accepted his readings in all cases except when otherwise indicated in the notes. The traditional division of Books 60 to 80, however, has been preserved, since it is still used more frequently than Boissevain*s rearrangement. ABBREVIATIONS Ancient authors and texts have been cited according to the standard abbreviations found in Liddell § Scott and in Lewis $ Short, except where these would have proved ambiguous. Reference to works of modern scholarship is by author and short title: full citations for all of these can be found in the Bibliography at the end of the commentary. The following abbreviations have also been used; again, details of publication for modern works are given in the Bibliography. AE L 'Annee Epigraphique BMC A Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum BMC Imp. 1 H. Mattingly. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, I: Augustus to Vitellius CAE 10 S'.\A. Cook et al.. The Cambridge Ancient History, X CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum Dessau H. Dessau, Geschichte der romischen Kaiserzeit E!JJ V. Ehrenberg and A.H.M. Jones. Documents Illus• trating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius? Eph. Epig. Ephemeris Epigraphica HA Historia Augusta viii Henzen W. Henzen, Acta Fratrum Arvalium IG Insoriptiones Graecae IGRR Insoriptiones Gvaeoae ad res Romanas pertinentes ILS H. Dessau, ed. Insoriptiones Latinae Selectae Maurer J.A. Maurer. A Commentary on C. Suetonii Tranquilli Vita C. Caligulae Caesaris (chapters I-XXI) Merivale C. Merivale. A History of the Romans under the Empire? OGIS G. Dittenberger. Orientis Graeci Insoriptiones Selectae FIR1 H. Dessau and P. de Rohden. Prosopographia Imperii Romani Saec. I. II. Ill 7 E. Groag and A. Stein. Prosopographia Imperii Romani? FIR A. Pauly et al. Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft RE Res Gestae divi Augusti RG R.R. Rosborough. An Epigraphic Commentary on Suetonius ' Life of Gaius Caligula Rosborough SIG 3 G. Dittenberger. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum Smallwood E.M. Smallwood. Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius, and Hero Ix TO T-FIS BacriAeias TTpayya OUK apexris yovov a'AXa KOU emcrxriyns KCYL o\)vn6eias, errrep TX a\Xo, TToXXns 6e1!xoa, icon, oux o\ov x£ eaxiv aveu EKefvwv a^ayevov xiva auxf>povrio'ai. TTOXXOI yoiK) Sjairep Is uifros xi yeya frapa T Aoyov ap0evxes O\)K rfveYKOiv ^v yexecopicnv, aXX' auxox xe KaxoaTeaovxes UTT' £KTTAii£;£(jos erTxaiaav KCU xa xCv apxoyevtov Travxa auvnAonaav. Dio fr. 12.9 1 INTRODUCTION Dio the Man Cassius Dio Cocceianus—his -praenomen, like that of Tacitus, is not known—was a native of Nicaea in the Roman province of Bithynia (76.15.3).1 Since he tells us himself that he was in Rome, and perhaps attending meetings of the Senate, by A.D. 180 (72.4.2), the traditional date for his birth has been fixed at A.D. 155: this would allow him to have been quaestor, and so a senator, by the normal age of 25. In fact, Dio's first clear reference to himself as a member of the Senate does not occur until A.D. 192 (72.16.3; cf. 72.18.3), and he was not praetor until A.D. 194 (73.12.2). Fourteen years is too long a gap between the quaestorship and the praetorship, even in the troubled times at the end of the second century. It is more likely, then, that Dio was born ca. A.D. 164; that he travelled to Rome before A.D. 180 and there attended meetings of the Senate after assuming the toga virilis, a common practice for senators' sons;2 and that he held the quaestorship in A.D. 188 or 189.3 The name Cocceianus suggests that he may have been a descendant of Dio Cocceianus of Prusa, although the connection must have been a distant one.1* Dio once refers to the philosopher, but strangely does not name him (69.3.6). His father was Cassius Apronianus, a Roman senator and consul, and later governor of Cilicia and Dalmatia (69.1.3; 49.36.4; cf.