Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-lvtdw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-19T15:54:22.067Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Calpurnius Siculus and the Claudian Civil War

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

T. P. Wiseman
T. P. Wiseman
Affiliation:
University of Exeter
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the first Eclogue of Calpurnius Siculus, Corydon and Ornytus seek to escape from the heat of the sun in a grove sacred to Faunus. There, on a beech tree, they find a long prophecy (lines 33–88), freshly carved by the god himself. After an introductory announcement of joyful news, the inscription proceeds as follows:

Aurea secura cum pace renascitur aetas

et redit ad terras tandem squalore situque

alma Themis posito iuvenemque beata sequuntur

saecula, maternis causam qui vicit Iulis.

dum populos deus ipse reget, dabit impia victas

post tergum Bellona manus spoliataque telis

in sua vesanos torquebit viscera morsus

et, modo quae toto civilia distulit orbe,

secum bella geret: nullos iam Roma Philippos

deflebit, nullos ducet captiva triumphos;

omnia Tartareo subigentur carcere bella

immergentque caput tenebris lucemque timebunt.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 72 , November 1982 , pp. 57 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © T. P. Wiseman 1982. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Champlin, E., JRS 68 (1978), 95–110;Google ScholarTownend, G. B., JRS 70 (1980), 166–74;Google Scholar R. Mayer, ibid. 175–6.

2 Townend, 168: the comet of lines 77–83 was visible in June and July; in lines 1–7 the sun is still fierce, and the grapes are being pressed. Townend sees in line 94 a deliberate blurring of the dates to include the actual accession of the iuvenis.

3 ‘Querebar ÷ non omnes causam vincere posse suam’; Bentley's ‘posse tenere suam’ is not necessary. (TLL cites also Cic., Deiot. 23, but that is not the same: the causa victa is Pompey's cause, as in Lucan's famous line 1–128, and vincere has its usual sense; Pompey has not ‘won his cause’, but Caesar has defeated it.) Note that Calpurnius' contemporary Seneca has a similar phrase in Apocol. 9. 6: ‘videbatur Claudius sententiam vincere’.

4 Tac., Ann. XII 58..1 (A.D. 53), Suet., Nero 7.2 (Graece; dating it to Claudius' consulship, presumably in 51), Claud. 25. 3.

5 Champlin, 98 f., Townend, 168 f.; Virg., Aen. I 267–71.

6 TLL III 688–9 (s.v. causa B3). Cf. Townend, 169: ‘the interpretation of causam vicit as ‘prevailed in a contest of power’ [as in Champlin 100], if it can be valid, makes much more sense in connection with Nero, for whom Julian blood in the proper sense was still an essential asset’. Quite so, though there is no need to doubt its validity; however, Townend goes on (groundlessly, in my view) ‘but the primary reference of the phrase must still be to the speech for the contemporary Ilians’.

7 Sen., Apocol. 10. 4 (Augustus speaks): ‘iste quern videtis, per tot annos sub meo nomine latens …’. Claudius' claim to be a Caesar at 5. 5–6. 1 (citing Hom., Od. IX 39, Ἰλιόθεν) is dismissed by Febris as mera mendacia; the allegation of the venal Diespiter at 9. 5, that Claudius was sanguine cognatus with the Divine Augustus, is clearly on a par with the following item, that he ‘longe omnes mortales sapientia antecellat’. Apollo, on the other hand, prophesies at 4. 1 (line 30) ‘talis Caesar adest, talem iam Roma Neronem aspiciet’. For a different explanation of Ἰλιόθεν, see D. C. Braund, CQ 30 (1980), 420–5.

Claudius' use of the name ‘Caesar’ was presumably based on the adoption of his grandmother Livia into the gens Iulia (Tac, Ann. 18; cf. Suet., Claud. 11. 2, Dio LX 5. 2, etc. for his deification of Livia), but her adoption did not, of course, affect his position. For the flattering fiction that Augustus was Claudius' grandfather, see A. Cameron, GRBS 21 (1980), 49 f., on Thallus, Anth. Pal. VI 235.

8 Plautus (Amph. 42 f.) includes her with Neptune, Virtus, Victoria and Mars as one of the Romans' particular benefactors; Livy (X 19. 17–21) has Appius pray to her as a bringer of victory. The temple of Bellona was vowed in 296 B.C., the temple of Iuppiter Victor in 295, and the temple of Victoria was dedicated in 294: see Weinstock, S., Harvard Theological Review 50 (1957), 215 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 See the article by Procksch in Roscher's, Lexikon 1 (1884–1886), 774–7Google Scholar. Enyo: Horn., Il. V 333, 592, etc. Comana goddess: Hor., Sat. II 3. 223, Tib. I 6. 45, Lucan I 565, Mart, XII 57. 11, Juv. IV 124, etc. Virgil: Aen. VIII 703, cf. Lucan VII 568, Sen., de ira II 35. 6, Sil. It., Pun. IV 439.

10 Carter, J. B., Epitheta deorum quae apud poetas Latinos leguntur (Roscher, Suppl., 1902), 18Google Scholar; TLL II 1820f.

11 Arma impia: Virg., Aen. VI 612 f., for which the standard parallels are Lucr. v 381 (pio nequaquam bello) and Lucan I 238 (non pia classica).

12 Ovid, , Fasti VI 199–208Google Scholar; Livy X 19.17–22; Inscr. It. XIII. 3 nos. 12 (fragments in Forum Augustum) and 79 (Arretium copy).

13 Pliny, NH XXXV 12, cf. Wiseman, T. P., Clio's Cosmetics (1979), 59 fGoogle Scholar. on the Claudian tombs sub Capitolio (Suet., Tib. 1. 1). For the temple and its position, see F. Coarelli, BCAR 80 (1965–7), 37–72, esp. 54 ff.

14 Serv., Aen. IX 52, Festus (Paulus) 30L, Ovid, , Fasti VI 205–8Google Scholar (solet, present tense), Dio LXXI 33. 3 (M. Aurelius).

15 Ovid, , Fasti I 3Google Scholar (Germanicus), VI 202 (‘Latio prospera semper adest’).

16 Champlin, 98, Townend, 166 f.

17 Ecl. Eins. 2. 32–4, Tac., Ann. XIII 4. 1; Pliny, Paneg. 5. 1 (cited by Townend, 167).

18 Suet., Claud. 13, carefully distinguishing it from mere conspiracies like those of Asinius Gallus and Statilius Corvinus; also Tac., Ann. XIII 43. 3 (n. 68 below).

19 Jos., AJ XIX 190 (cf. n. 88 below); ibid. 160, 186 (consuls issue edicts, summon Senate, give watchword), Dio LIX 30. 3, LX 1. 1 (consuls move treasury to Capitol, station guards).

20 Suet., Gaius 60, Jos., AJ XIX 167 ff., esp. 173 on Caesar the dictator and his successors, 187 on ‘100 years’; cf. also Dio LX I. I, Jos., BJ II 205.

21 Jos., AJ XIX 162–6, 221–5, Suet., Claud. 10, Dio LX I (Claudius); Jos., AJ XIX 188, BJ I 1 205, Suet., Claud. 10. 3 (urban cohorts). Agrippa: Jos., AJ XIX 241.

22 Populace: Jos., AJ XIX 228, cf. 115, 129 f., 158 f. Praetorians: ibid. 224. Tribunes: ibid. 234.

23 Tac., Ann. I 4. 2 (‘plures bellum pavescere, alii cupere’); ibid. 7. 6 f., 31. 1, 35. 3, Suet., Gaius 1. 1, Dio LVII 3. 1, 5. 1 on the possibility of the Rhine legions installing Germanicus.

24 Vinicius and Asiaticus: Jos., AJ XIX 251 f., with M. Swan, AJP 91 (1970), 149–55. Vinicius' ancestry: Tac., Ann. VI 15. 1; R. Syme, Hist. 11 (1962), 147–9 = Roman Papers (1979), 531–3. Asiaticus' wealth and contacts: Tac., Ann. XI 1. Cohorts: Jos., AJ XIX 249, 263.

25 See n. 23 above, and Tac., Ann. IV 17. 2 on the boast of C. Silius, legate of Upper Germany (‘neque mansurum Tiberii imperium, si iis quoque legionibus cupido novandi fuisset’).

26 Tac., Hist. I 4. 2: ‘evulgato imperii arcano, posse principem alibi quam Romae fieri’.

27 Tac., Ann. II 39. 2, Suet., Aug. 19. 2 (Agrippa Postumus and Rhine legions); n. 23 above (Germanicus and Rhine legions); Tac., Ann. IV 59. 5, 67. 6 (Nero Caesar and Rhine legions); Tac., Ann. V 10. 2, Dio LVIII 25. 1 (Drusus Caesar and Syria legions).

28 Tac., Ann. VI 30. 5; for his planned revolt against Gaius, see Suet., Claud. 9. 1, Dio LIX 22. 5, Acta fr. Arv. 27 Oct. 39 (‘ob detecta nefaria con[silia in C. Germani]cum Cn. Lentul i Gaet[ulici]’).

29 Dio LIX 20. 7. Piso was the son of the Cn. Piso who had been accused of the murde r of Germanicus.

30 On the disposition of the Spanish legions, see Jones, R. F. J., JRS 66 (1976), 49–51Google Scholar.

31 Suet., , Gaius 12. 1Google Scholar, ‘M. Silani [cos. 15] nobilissimi viri f.’ (married in about 33, died in childbirth soon after). Cf. Weidemann, U., Acta Classica 6 (1963), 138 ff.Google Scholar, whence also PIR 2I 824, suggesting ‘Appia [MSS alia] parente geniti’ at Tac., Ann. in 68. 3, which would give Appius Silanus and Iunia Claudilla a Claudian grandmother in common.

32 Suet., Aug. 62. 1 (‘Claudiam Fulviae ex P. Clodio filiam’); Tac., Ann. IV 52. 1, PIR 2C 1103 (Claudia Pulchra sobrina of Agrippina: i.e. daughter of Marcella minor and M. Messalla Appianus cos. 12 B.C.); AE 1969–70. 118 (Livia C. f. Pulchra); Suet., Tib. 3. 1, Veil. Pat. I 75. 3 (Livius Drusus Claudianus). For the Claudii Pulchri in the early Empire—including a neglected consul of possibly Tiberian date (CIL XIV 4707)—see T. P. Wiseman, HSCP 74 (1970), 207–21.

33 Vell. Pat. II 100. 4; on the background, see Levick, B. M., Latomus 31 (1972), 795–801Google Scholar, and Tiberius the Politician (1976), 41 f., 55, 166.

34 Aemilia Lepida (previously engaged to Claudius) and M. Iunius Silanus Torquatus cos. 19: Pliny, NH VII 58, CIL VI 27034, X 8041. 21. For the fall of the younger Iulia, see Levick, B. M., Latomus 35 (1976), 301–39Google Scholar. D. Silanus: Tac., Ann. in 24. For the Silani and their relations with successive emperors, see D. McAlindon, AJP 77 (1956), 119–23.

35 REA 44 (1942), 36 (Q. Plotius A. f., 113 B.C.); Livy, per. 74 (A.? Plotius, legate 90 B.C.); Asc. 79C (M. Plautius Silvanus, tr. pl. 89 B.C.). For the family and its origin, see L. R. Taylor, MAAR 24 (1956), 7–30, esp. 23–9, and Birley, A., The Fasti of Roman Britain (1981), 37–40Google Scholar.

36 CIL XIV 3605–6, Vell. Pat. II 112. 4, Dio LV 34. 6, LVI 12. 2, etc. (PIR P 361). He was the grandson of an Aulus: for the stemma, see Taylor, op. cit. 24, and Vogel-Weidemann, U., Acta Classica 19 (1976), 135–8;Google Scholarcontra Brizio, L. Berni, Atti CeSDIR 2 (1969–1970), 146Google Scholar, whence AE 1972. 162.

37 Tac., Ann. II 34. 3, IV 22. 3; Suet., Claud. 26. 2, 27. 1; cf. Suet., Claud. 4. 3, Nero 35. 4 for the adfinitas. Note too the praenomen of Ti. Plautius M. f. Silvanus Aelianus (cos. 45 and 74), named probably in the last years of Augustus, and the celebration of Livia's birthday by M. Plautius as IIvir at Trebula Suffenas in 23 (CIL VI 29681. 1. 18–22, with Taylor, op. cit. 17 and 26).

38 CIL XIV 3607 on P. Plautius Pulcher triumphalis filius, adlected into the patricians by Claudius in 48, whose cognomen suggests descent from the Claudii Pulchri; Tac., Ann. IV 22. 4 (Silvanus' other son married Fabia Numantina); CIL XIV 2845 (Plautia Quinctilia A. f.). Quotation from Taylor, op. cit. (n. 35 above), 30.

39 See E. Weinrib, HSCP 72 (1968), 247–78; J. Scheid, MEFRA 87 (1975), 349–75. Rival stemmata at pp. 274–5 and pp. 368–70 respectively.

40 Tac., Ann. II 53 (descent from ille reciperator urbis, triumphal decorations); cf. Suet., Claud. 26. I on Livia Medullina (his daughter, CIL X 6561), ‘cui et cognomen Camillae erat, e genere antiquo dictatoris Camilli’. Livy v 19. 2, etc.: M. Furius Camillus diet. 396, 390, 389, 368, 367, tr. mil. cos. pot. 401, 398, 394, 386, 384, 381 B.C.

41 Medullina: see n. 40. Libo Drusus: Tac., Ann. II 27, Sen., Ep. 70. 10 (Scribonia), Suet., Tib. 25. 3, Dio LVII 15. 4, Vell. Pat. II 129. 2, 130. 3, Fasti Amiternini for 13 Sept.; for the significance of his nefaria consilia, see now Levick, B., Tiberius the Politician (1976), 149–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Weinrib, op. cit. (n. 39 above), 265 ff.; Tac., Ann. III 31. 5 (Sullae), CIL VI 5942 (Faustus Arruntius), Jos., AJ XIX 102 (Paullus Arruntius), ILS 976 (L. Arruntius Scribonianus ‘Pompei Magni a[dnepos]’); Tac., Ann. I 13, VI 7, XI 6–7 (wealth, artes); ibid. I 13 (Augustus' story); Hist. II 65. 11, cf. Ann. I 80, VI 27. 3 (Spain governorship, Tiberius' metus).

43 As argued by Balsdon, J. P. V. D., JRS 24 (1934), 13–16Google Scholar.

44 Tac., Hist. I 49 (‘vetus in familia nobilitas, magnae opes’), Suet., Galba 2; cf. T. P. Wiseman, GR 21 (1974), 153 on the legendary genealogy. The first recorded Ser. Sulpicius was cos. 500 B.C. Wealth: Plut., , Galba 3. 1Google Scholar, cf. Suet., , Galba 3. 4, 4Google Scholar. 1 on his ‘adoption’ by his wealthy stepmother Livia Ocellina.

45 Suet., , Galba 2, 3. 4Google Scholar, Tac., Hist. I 15; for the Iuppiter temple inscription, see Cic., Verr. IV 69, Val. Max. VI 9. 5, Tac., Hist. III 72. 3 (‘Lutati Catuli nomen inter tanta Caesarum opera usque ad Vitellium mansit’). For a possible explanation of his maternal descent from Pasiphae (Suet., Galba 2), see Wiseman, op. cit. (n. 44), 156 on Serv., Aen. VII 796.

46 Suet., , Galba 5. 1Google Scholar (Lepida, Agrippina), 5. 2 (Livia), 6. 2–3, 8. 1 (Germany, on which see also Dio LX 8. 7, Tac., Hist. I 49); cf. n. 28 above on Gaetulicus.

47 Jos., AJ XIX 253 (forces); Suet., Claud. 7–9 (consulship).

48 Jos., Af XIX 164 (uncle of Gaius), 217–9 (Germanicus), Dio LX 1. 3. For the reality, cf. n. 7 above.

49 Galba: Suet., , Galba 7. 1Google Scholar (‘multis ad occasionem stimulantibus’). Scribonianus: Dio LX 15. 2 (ὅτι ἐπίδοξος αὐταρχήσειν ἐγέγονει, already before 42).

50 Galba: Suet., , Galba 7. 1Google Scholar. Plautius: inferred from his command in the British campaign, and his unprecedented ovatio in 47 (Tac., Ann. XIII 32, Suet., Claud. 24. 3, Dio LX 30. 2, Eutropius VII 13. 4).

51 Dio LXI. 4, 3. 2. On his coins, Claudius is ‘Ti. Claudius Caesar Augustus’ from the very beginning (cf. n. 7 above); but he refused the praenomen imperatoris (Suet., Claud. 12. 1).

52 Dio LX 14. 3–4, Suet., Claud. 37. 2, Sen., Apocol. 11. 5.

53 Vinicianus: Jos., AJ XIX 252, Dio LX 15. 1–2. Pomponius: Tac., Ann. XIII 43. 3. Paetus: Dio LX 16. 5–6, Pliny, Ep. III 16. 7–9. Other senators and equites: Dio LX 15. 3. For this episode, see in general Ehrhardt, C., Antichthon 12 (1978), 62–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 Suet., Claud. 35. 2, Dio LX 15. 4.

55 Suet., Claud. 13. 2 (standards could not be raised), Dio LX 15. 3–4 (Scribonianus made the mistake of asking them to fight for a restored Republic).

56 Dio LX 15. 3–4, 16. 6, Tac., Hist. II 75, Pliny, Ep. III 16. 9.

57 Calp., Ecl. 1. 49 f., Virg., Georg. I 511 (p. 58 above). Toto distulit orbe, though not of course the literal truth or anything like it, was no doubt intelligible enough to those at Rome who had feared (or hoped) that Claudius would be challenged by legionary armies from Spain, Germany, or the Danube provinces.

58 Dio LX 3. 5, Suet., Claud. II. 1, Jos., BJ II 208.

59 Dio LX 4. 1–2, 4. 5. 6. 3.

60 Dio LX 6. 1, 11. 6–12. 5, Suet., Claud. 12. 1–2.

61 Dio LX 7. 3, Suet., Claud. 21. 3 (reserved seats in Circus).

62 Dio LX 10. 1, Suet., Claud. 11. 2; Mattingly, H., Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum I (1923), 164 no. 1Google Scholar, 165 no. 6, 185 no. 145 (CONSTANTIAE AVGVSTI, PACI AVGVSTAE, LIBERTAS AVGVSTA S.C.); for the third type, see Swan, op. cit. (n. 24 above), 163 f.

63 See Syme, R., JRS 50 (1960), 12–20Google Scholar, esp. 18 f. = Roman Papers (1979), 496–509, esp. 506 f.; Weinrib and Scheid, opp. citt. (n. 39 above) for the Scribonian connection; Ehrhardt, op. cit. (n. 53 above), 58.

64 CIL VI 31721; Dio LX 8. 6, 9. 1–5 (Suetonius Paullinus and Hosidius Geta); triumphal ornamenta inferred from Suet., Claud. 17. 3.

65 Dio XL 5. 7, Suet., Claud. 27. 2; Ehrhardt, op. cit. (n. S3 above), 59 f. For his dangerous name, cf. Suet., Cal. 35. 1, Sen., Apocol. 11. 2 (Gaius' jealousy).

66 Dio XL 5. 7, Suet., Claud. 27. 2; cf. n. 34 above.

67 See n. 58.

68 Tac., Ann. XIII 43. 3: ‘acerbitate accusationis Q. Pomponium ad necessitatem belli civilis detrusum’. Cf. Ann. IV 31. 3 on Suillius; Syme, R., JRS 60 (1970), 27Google Scholar f. = Roman Papers (1979), 806 f.; for the date of his consulship (Nov.–Dec. 41 ?), see P. A. Gallivan, CQ 28 (1978), 419, 424.

69 See n. 24 above. Livilla: Dio LX 4. 1, 8. 5, Suet., Claud. 29. 1, Sen., Apocol. 10. 4, cf. Tac., Ann. XIV 63. 2.

70 e.g. J. W., and Duff, A. M., Minor Latin Poets (Loeb, ed. 1934), 223 nGoogle Scholar. b.

71 Compare Suetonius' dismissive phrase (Claud. 17. 1): ‘expeditionem unam omnino suscepit eamque modicam.’

72 cf. Sen., de clem. I 12. 3 for cives becoming hastes. From Calpurnius' Neronian point of view, of course, Seribonianus was no more qualified than Claudius to aspire to the position of the materni Iuli.

73 Tac., Ann. XIII 4. 2.

74 Dio LX 15. 4–16. 4; Ehrhardt, op. cit. (n. 53), 64. Senate meetings in Palatio (i.e. in the library of the Apollo complex): Jos., AJ XIX 266, Tac., Ann. XIII 5. 2, cf. D. L. Thompson, AJA 85 (1981), 335–9. See n. 56 above for the deaths of Scribonianus’ three consular allies Pomponius Secundus, Annius Vinicianus and Caecina Paetus. For the torture, cf. P. A. Brunt, ZSS 97 (1980), 259 f.

75 Dio LX 23. 2, Suet., Claud. 17. 3. Besides the five mentioned below, we know of Cn. Sentius Saturninus (Eutrop. VII 13. 2), Ser. Sulpicius Galba (Suet., , Galba 7. 1)Google Scholar, Ti. Plautius Silvanus Aelianus (CIL XIV 3608), Gallus, A. Didius (Hesperia 10 (1941), 239–41)Google Scholar.

76 AE 1929. 166; R. Syme, CQ 27 (1933), 142–4 = Danubian Papers (1971), 26–8 and 34; Dio LX 27. 4, cf. nn. 24 and 69 above.

77 Sen., Apocol. II. 2 and 5; nn. 63–4 above.

78 Dio LX 21. 5, 23. 1; Suet., Claud. 29. 2, Sen., Apocol. II. 2; n. 65 above.

79 Tac., Ann. XI 1–3, esp. 1. 3 (‘tamquam opprimendo bello’), 2. 1 (intra cubiculum), 3. 1 (Britain); cf. n. 24 above.

80 Dio LX 21. 5, 23. 1, Suet., Claud. 24. 3, ILS 957; Tac., Ann. XII 3. 2, 4. 4, 8. 1, Suet., Claud. 29. 2, Dio LX 31. 8; cf. n. 34 above.

81 e.g. C. Sallustius Crispus Passienus cos. suff. 27, married first to Domitia Lepida and then to Agrippina, cos. II ord. 44, poisoned in 46 or 47 (Schol. Juv. IV 8i, cf. Syme, R., Tacitus (1958), 328 f.Google Scholar)— though Agrippina herself was supposedly responsible for that; his colleague T. Statilius Taurus cos. ord. 44, forced to suicide in 53 (Tac., Ann. XII 59. 1–3—Agrippina again); Taurus' brother Statilius Corvinus, Vinicius' colleague as cos. ord. 45, presumably executed after his conspiracy in 46 or 47 (Suet., Claud. 13. 2; cf. Dio LX 27. 5 on Asinius Gallus, who was merely banished); Lusius Saturninus cos. suff. 41 ? and Cornelius Lupus cos. suff. 42, executed before 47 (Sen., Apocol. 13. 5, q.v. also for Ser. Asinius Celer cos. suff. 38, and Pompeius Pedo, whose consulate may have been under Gaius; see P. A. Gallivan, CQ 28 (1978), 417, 424 on Saturninus); and of course C. Silius, executed as cos. des. in 48 (Tac., Ann. XI 5. 3, 12. 2–4, 26–35, Sen., Apocol. 13. 4).

82 e.g. Jos., AJ XIX 263 (Q. Pomponius Secundus threatened in 41), Tac., Ann. XI 1. 3 (arrest of Valerius Asiaticus in 47), 35. 3–4 (Silius in 48); Dio LX 16. 7 (Homeric vengeance as watchword), LX 3. 3 and Suet., Claud. 35. 1 (escort of soldiers to dinner parties), etc.

83 The parallel with the Praetorians may extend to ‘in sua… torquebit viscera’: cf. Tac., Ann. XII 42. 1–2 for the alleged internal strife within the cohorts (caused by the rivalry of the two Prefects), which was only ended by the appointment of Agrippina's nominee Burrus, the power behind Nero's accession (XII 69. 1).

84 See in particular de clem. I 12–13, 25–26, II 4; cf. Griffin, M., Seneca: a Philosopher in Politics (1976), 141–8Google Scholar; ibid. 407–11 for the date of Seneca's essay.

85 De clem. I 9, esp. 9. 3 (Pompey), 9. 5 (Augustus ‘nobilibus adulescentulis expositum caput’), 9. 10 (other nobiles). Claudius is mentioned explicitly at I 23. 1 (on undue severitas in punishing parricides); for his proverbial saevitia see Suet., Clmid. 15. 4, 34, Nero 33. I, Sen., Apocol. 6. 2; possible hints at de clem. I 1. 8, 7. 3, 8. 7, etc.; cf. Griffin, op. cit. 150 f.

86 e.g. Tac., Ann. XI 1. 3, 32. 3, Dio LX 16. 1.

87 Dio LX 5. 2; cf. 5. 3–4, Sen., Apocol. 12. 3, Suet., Claud. 14–15 on Claudius' love of the judge's role.

88 cf. Tac., Ann. XIII 4. 3, ‘teneret antiqua munia senatus’, etc. For mercatus in line 69, cf. ibid. 4.2 (‘nihil in penatibus suis venale aut ambitioni pervium’), Dio LX 17. 8, Suet., Claud. 29. 1, Sen., Ep. 47. 9, Tac., Hist. V 12. 5. For the laws, cf. Griffin, op. cit. (n. 84) 138 f., and n. 19 above.

89 See Ecl. 1. 94, and 4 passim; at 4. 64–72 and 160–3, Corydon-Calpurnius aspires to a relationship with Meliboeus like that of Virgil with Maecenas.

90 Plut., , Numa 21. 1Google Scholar, cf. Dion. Hal. II 76. 5; Crawford, M. H., Roman Republican Coinage (1974), 333Google Scholar (Pomponii, c. 97 B.C.); Hor., AP 292, laus Pison 5, 15 (Pisones).

91 Ecl. 4. 55–7, laus Pisonis 163–8. The identification was first proposed by Haupt, M. in his epoch-making work De carminibus bucolicis Calpurnii et Nemesiani (1854)Google Scholar.

92 Pliny, NH VII 80, XIII 83, Tac., Ann. V 8, XII 28. 2 (ornamenta triumphalia in 50), dial. 13. 3. He was half-brother to Corbulo: Syme, R., JRS 60 (1970), 31Google Scholar = Roman Papers (1979), 811 f., on Pliny, NH VII 39. Cf. Syme, R., History in Ovid (1978), 74 f.Google Scholar, on Ovid's friend C. Pomponius Graecinus cos. suff. 16; it is hard to imagine two totally separate families of consular (and military) Pomponii.

93 Pliny, Ep. VII 17. 11, Quintilian VIII 3. 31, X 1. 98, Tac., Ann. XI 13. 1. Meliboeus: Ecl. 4. 56 f.

94 A. Momigliano, CQ 38 (1944), 97.

95 On the vexed question of the date and identity of the historian Curtius Rufus, see now Atkinson, J. E., A Commentary on Q. Curtius Rufus' Historiae Alexandri Magni Books 3 & 4 (London Studies in Classical Philology 4, Amsterdam 1980) 19–57Google Scholar, esp. 25–35 on the crucial passage X 9. 1–6; earlier bibliography is cited there. Atkinson argues convincingly for the identity of the historian with the first-century rhetor (Suet., Rhet., index) and the cos. suff. 43, but I think he is wrong to prefer Claudius to Nero as the new princeps of X 9. 3. His arguments are (i) that the reference to the indivisibility of the monarchy at X 9. 1 is inappropriate to the ‘co-regency’ of Nero with Agrippina (pp. 25, 27), and (ii) that the menace of arson and bloodshed at X 9. 5 is inappropriate to the peaceful conditions of Nero's accession (pp. 25, 33). But (i) Agrippina was never co-regent in the sense that Tiberius was for Augustus, or Titus for Vespasian, and the very phrase regnum insociabile is used by Tacitus of Nero's early years, in the context of the death of Britannicus (Ann. XIII 17. 1); and (ii) the idea that civil strife had been ended or averted by Nero's accession was evidently perfectly intelligible at the time, as Calpurnius shows: for the relevance of Calpurnius to the Curtius passage, see R. Verdière, WS 79 (1966), 460–509. On balance, therefore, I think it more likely than not that Curtius X 9. 1–6 belongs in the same early Neronian context as Calpurnius, the Apocolocyntosis and the de clementia.

96 Sen., de clem. I 1. 8: ‘securitas alta, adflnuens, ius supra omnem iniuriam positum; obversatur oculis laetissima forma rei publicae, cui ad summam libertatem nihil deest nisi pereundi licentia’.

97 Tac., Ann. XIII 4. 2, Sen., Apocol. 4. 1, 10. 4, 12. 2, 14. 2, Calp., Ecl. 1. 43 f., 69, 71–3.

98 Sen., de clem. I 1. 4, etc. (n. 85 above), I 1 1. 4; for the Golden Age, cf. Sen., Apocol. 4. 1, Calp., Ecl. 1. 42, 4. 6f.

99 Tac., Ann. XIII 4. 1, Sen., de clem. 1 7. 3–4 (ultio); Sen., Apocol. 12. 2 (cf. 4. 2, 5. 1 for the popularity of Nero's accession), Calp., Ecl. 1. 60 f.

100 Tac., Ann. XIII 4. 3 (cf. 4. I auctoritas patrum), Calp., Ecl. 1. 69–71.

101 Sen., de clem. I 4. 1–3 (soul), Curt, X 9. 2–4 (head).

102 Calp., Ecl. 1. 37–41, 84 f.; 4. 85, 97–100 (the same image at Curt, X 9. 5), 122–36.

103 Sen., de clem. 1 8. 4 (sun), Apocol. 4. 1 (Apollo); Curt, X 9. 3 (novum sidus), Calp., Ecl. 1. 77–83; cf. Suet., Claud. 46, Dio LX 35. I on the comet as a praesagium of Claudius' death.

104 Tac., Ann. XIII 4. 1, Sen., de clem. I 11. 3, Curt, X 9. 3 and 5; cf. Calp., Ecl. 4. 8 on pax togata.

105 It originates in Galba's speech (Tac., Hist. I 16. 1), where ‘unius familiae… Iuliorum Claudiorumque domo’ is a rhetorical simplification. Contrast Hist. 11 48. 2, ‘post Iulios Claudios Servios…’.

106 Charisius 1 132K, ‘Pomponius Secundus in Aenea’. I t is the only one of Pomponius' plays of which the title is preserved.

This article owes its origin to Su Braund and Richard Seaford and their Exeter seminar on Calpurnius; for helpful criticism and suggestions on particular points, I am very grateful to Su and Dave Braund, Barbara Levick, and the Editorial Committee.