DOMITIUS CORBULO AND THE SENATORIAL OPPOSITION TO THE REIGN OF NERO* I. INTRODUCTION Domitius Corbulo enjoyed trust and considerable favour with Gaius and Claudius. In AD 39, he became consul suffectus, no doubt as a conse- quence of his well-attested connections to the domus Augusta and prob- ably as a token of imperial gratitude for the financial profits Gaius made out of the prosecutions of the highway commissioners that Corbulo’s ran- corous (and homonymous) father had pursued ever since the rule of Tiberius. Although in 43, Claudius forced Corbulo Maior to repay a part of the fines to his victims, the star of Corbulo the Younger continued to rise. In 47, he achieved military repute as legatus Augusti pro praetore exercitus Germaniae inferioris, receiving the ornamenta triumphalia for his ruthless campaign against several Germanic tribes. Around AD 52, Corbulo got the prestigious proconsulate of Asia. That Nero also had complete confidence in Corbulo up to and including the eventful year of AD 65, is irrefutable1. In 63, the emperor commanded all legati Augusti pro praetore serving in the Eastern imperial provinces to obey the military orders of Corbulo, whose imperium pro praetore was * This paper may be construed as the complement of A Note on Syme’s Chronology of Vistilia’s Children, AncSoc 30 (2000), p. 95-113, where an attempt was made to analyse the nexus of familial, amical and patronal ties wherein Domitius Corbulo flourished. The results of this analysis may help to explain Corbulo’s unusually successful political and military career. I sincerely wish to thank Prof. Dr. J. Devreker and Dr. K. Verboven for reading this paper. I also wish to warmly thank Prof. Dr. K. Demoen and especially Prof. Dr. A. Giovannini for some critical and inspiring remarks. 1 For the activities and rebuke of Domitius Corbulo Maior, see Ann. III 31.5 & Dio LIX 15.3-6 & LX 17.2. Regarding the actions of this harsh praetorius, R. Syme, Domitius Cor- bulo, in Roman Papers, II, Oxford 1979, p. 820, astutely remarks that «Whatever the trans- gressions of this objectionable person, he had not laboured all in vain. He was vindicated not long after by governmental action. In 47, the Emperor constructed a road which ran through Peltuinum and the territory of the Vestini, precisely: the Via Claudia Nova». V. Rudich, Political Dissidence under Nero. The Price of Dissimulation, London–New York 1993, p. 198, also stresses that there is absolutely no proof for Nero’s distrust until the coniuratio Viniciana. 136 F.J. VERVAET in this way de facto, ex iussu imperatoris, elevated to the level of a potes- tas consularis. Thus, Nero gave Corbulo single and direct control over the greatest concentrated army in the Empire2. A second proof of Nero’s trust is the advancement of Corbulo’s son-in-law, Annius Vinicianus, nondum senatoria aetate, to the position of pro legato of V Macedonica, one of Corbulo’s legions for the final Armenian campaign3. Dio in par- ticular stresses that Nero had an absolute confidence in his general and that Corbulo always demonstrated total loyalty towards his slightly eccen- tric princeps4. However, a series of dramatic events, succeeding each other at ever shorter intervals, would directly contribute to the ruin of the venerable general. The purpose of this paper, though, is not to examine the nature and evolution of senatorial opposition to the reign of Nero5. Rather it is 2 By way of balance, however, C. Cestius Gallus was appointed legatus Augusti pro praetore of Syria. For a detailed definition of Corbulo’s so-called imperium maius and an exhaustive review of the legions he commanded from 63 until his recall, see F.J. VERVAET, Tacitus Ann. 15, 25, 3: A Revision of Corbulo’s imperium maius (AD 63- AD 65?), in C. DEROUX (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, Vol. X, Brussels 2000, p. 260-298, and my forthcoming article on Domitius Corbulo and the Rise of the Flavian Dynasty, to be published in Historia 51 (2002). 3 Ann. XV 28.3. This bestowal of favour on a loyal legatus Augusti pro praetore by a princeps was not unique. In AD 17 Piso, legatus Augusti pro praetore provinciae Syriae, was given the privilige of having his son as legatus legionis under his command (Ann. II 57.1), and in 67 Vespasian was accompanied to Iudaea by his son Titus, who was to assume the post of legatus legionis of XV Apollinaris: ex quaestura deinde honore legione praepositus… (Suet., Titus 4.3). The parallel with the case of Annius Vinicianus, nondum senatoria aetate et pro legato quintae legioni impositus (Ann. XV 28.3), is striking. Even after the dramatic attempts to depose him in 65 and 66, it is clear that Nero had not become so paranoid that he was no longer able to give his confidence to favourites. 4 Dio LXII 19.3-4, cf. infra. 5 Though some scholars are convinced that the opposition was organised into a small number of factiones with a strongly ideological colour (so E. CIZEK, L’époque de Néron et ses controverses idéologiques, Leiden 1972, p. 55- 70), I wish to follow the approach which warns against over-rigid conceptions of the unity and distribution of the senatorial opposition and which puts the ideological aspect especially into perspective. See, for exam- ple, D. MCALINDON, Senatorial Opposition to Claudius and Nero, AJPh 77 (1956), p. 114, where it is argued that the provocative behaviour of Gaius and Nero called forth the defec- tion of a number of families who had been loyal to the dynasty up to their reigns. On p. 131ff, McAlindon rejects the notion of a strongly ideologically inspired and coherently structured ‘philosophical/Stoic’ opposition. R. SYME, Tacitus, Oxford 1958, p. 554- 555, likewise advises great caution regarding the «alleged influence of either philosophical doc- trine or Republican sentiments». For further references regarding this subject, see R. SYME, A Political Group, in Roman Papers, VII, Oxford 1991, p. 568-587 & U. VOGEL-WEIDE- MANN, Die Statthalter von Africa und Asia zwischen 14 und 68 n.Chr.: eine Untersuchung zum Verhältnis Princeps und Senat, Bonn 1982, p. 434. DOMITIUS CORBULO AND THE SENATORIAL OPPOSITION 137 confined to a review of those episodes from Nero’s conflict with various factions and individuals in the senate that contributed to the final and fatal rupture of trust between the emperor and his general. II. CORBULO’S RELATIVES AND THE SENATORIAL OPPOSITION BEFORE AD 54 A brief review of this matter is not out of place here as it indicates the extent to which Corbulo could have been compromised on account of familial connections to the senatorial opposition and coniurati before the reign of Nero. In addition, it can help to throw light on Corbulo’s possi- ble political convictions. Corbulo’s half-brother P. Pomponius Secundus (suff. 44) ran into serious trouble in AD 31 as a consequence of the attack on kinsmen and (supposed) friends of L. Aelius Seianus. Ann. V (VI) 8, records he was accused of involvement in this incident together with P. Vitellius6. The latter was accused of having offered, as praefectus aerarii militaris, the claustra aerarii to the conspirators. P. Pomponius himself was accused by the praetorius Considius of amicitia with Aelius Gallus, since this relative of Seianus7 had fled to Pomponius’ gardens after the death of Seianus. Both were defended only by their brothers. Following a failed suicide attempt, P. Vitellius ended his days in aegritudine animi. In AD 33, the older brother, Quintus Pomponius Secundus (suff. 41), fought fire with fire and attacked his brother’s accuser, Considius Proculus, in the curia, accusing him of maiestas (according to Tacitus ut parta apud principem gratia periculis Pomponii Secundi fratris mederetur)8. This bold action met with success: Considius Proculus was later condemned and summarily executed, his sister Sancia aqua et igni interdictum9. The 6 P. Vitellius was one of Germanicus’ most loyal partisans (cf. Ann. I 70 & II 6) and played an important part in the downfall of Cn. Piso, together with, among others, Q. Veranius (Ann. II 74 & III 10-19). Suet., Vit. 2 describes him as comes Germanici, who Cn. Pisonem inimicum et interfectorum eius accusauit condemnauitque. Suetonius also mentions his arrest inter Seiani conscios and his death under arrest after a failed attempt to commit suicide. 7 For a discussion of the degree of affinity of Aelius Gallus with Seianus, see R. SYME, The Augustan Aristocracy, Oxford 1986, p. 308. 8 Ann. VI 18.1. Tacitus styles him here as moribus inquies. For the two Pomponii Secundi, see PIR2 P 754 & 757. 9 Ann. VI 18.1. 138 F.J. VERVAET two Pomponii Secundi managed to avoid further turmoil during the rest of Tiberius’ reign, a fact explained by Tacitus’ description of P. Pompo- nius’ own reaction to the dangerous trouble he got into: At Pomponius, multa morum elegantia et ingenio inlustri, dum aduersam fortunam aequus tolerat, Tiberio superstes fuit. Thanks to Dio (LIX 6.2) we know that P. Pomponius was only released from house-arrest by Gaius, a fact explaining the initially cordial relationship of the two Pomponii Secundi and this successor of Tiberius (cf. infra). In AD 32, again as a consequence of the death of L. Aelius Seianus, a number of (future) relatives of Corbulo found themselves compromised. Sextus Vistilius, by Tiberius personally conuictu principis prohibitus, opened his veins after a desperate attempt to regain the emperor’s favour. After him Annius Pollio (suff. 21/22) and his son L. Annius Vinicianus (suff. 40), C. Iunius Appius Silanus (ord.