II

THE NEW EMPEROR

INTRODUCTION

Optimus est post malum principem dies primus (“the best day following a bad ruler is the first”) declared Curtius Montanus in AD 69 (Tac. Hist. 4.42). The essential truth of this observation is demonstrated on several occasions in Roman history. In 37 AD, Romans were spellbound when the young Caligula entered the city and with a dignified humility declared to the Senate that he would rule along Augustan lines. While senators may not have started to feel doubts by as early as the following day, they certainly did within a couple of years. In some ways, the reign of Nero was a reprise of Caligula’s. While he was amenable to supervision by Agrippina, or to the joint guidance of Seneca and Burrus, Nero showed himself from the very outset, in December 54, capable of enlightened and statesmanlike judgment. With the murder of his mother in March 59, he felt he was his own man and liberated himself from the stern and sober advice that had served him so well. His reign from that point on was a descent into often arbitrary tyranny. It seems remarkable that Romans would have hoped that the youthful Nero would bring a golden age of enlightened government, given their previous experience under Caligula. Even those who knew Nero well seem to have deceived themselves, including men such as Seneca, who appears to have believed that his De Clementia, dedicated to Nero in 55, would be a manual of conduct to which the young emperor would subscribe.

The inevitable disappointment came more slowly in Nero’s case than in Caligula’s, and the first few years of the Neronian regime were marked by deference to the senatorial order and sobriety in the management of the state. It is difficult to determine exactly how government in this early period operated, since much of it was at the level of Nero’s private consilium (council of close advisers), and in the nature of things most of what played out there would remain hidden from public view. Tacitus speaks of Seneca and Burrus as partners, equally influential, each in his own way (Tac. Ann. 13.2.1), but at the political level, especially in directing Nero’s relations with the Senate, it seems more likely that it was Seneca who was the senior partner. As a sign of this, we learn that in the very first piece of business that Nero transacted, the deification of his “father” and predecessor Claudius, it was Seneca who wrote the eulogy for him, and this practice was repeated on later occasions, so that in a way Nero became Seneca’s mouthpiece. Claudius’s funeral was followed the next day by a major speech delivered by Nero before the Senate, in which he promised to rule by the principles established by Augustus and to avoid the practices that had aroused such bitterness under Claudius, especially the blurring of the public and private aspects of the principate. The Senate decreed that the speech be inscribed in gold and read when the new consuls entered office at the beginning of the new year. Perceptive older members might have pondered over the equally sycophantic response to Caligula’s first efforts at governing.

This general observation of an initial period of responsible government is perhaps complicated rather than helped by the notion found in the fourth-century writer Aurelius Victor’s Liber de Caesaribus and the anonymous Epitome de Caesaribus, at one time also mistakenly attributed to Victor, that the emperor Trajan identified a quinquennium (five-year period) of good administration by Nero. The evidence is late, and there can be no certainty that Trajan did indeed make such a judgment. It seems to suggest a formal initial five-year period of rule. This did not exist, although it can be said that the murder of Agrippina in 59 (just under five years after the start of his rule) did informally mark a shift in the reign. Also, while Trajan might have found much to admire in the first five years of Nero’s reign, it is remarkable that he would have ranked him more highly than he ranked all the other emperors from Augustus down to Nerva. Moreover, Trajan is not represented as admiring Nero’s good government as such. Aurelius Victor says that he excelled augenda urbe maxime (“especially in his expansion of the city”), and the anonymous author of the Epitome is more specific in noting that in this period he constructed an amphitheater and baths. Scholars have tended to become more and more cautious about using Trajan’s supposed assessment of Nero’s first five years.

SOURCES

The Quinquennium

Aur. Vict. Caes. 5.1–2. In this way, Lucius Domitius (that certainly being his name, as his father was a Domitius) became emperor. Although in his youth he was under the control of a stepfather for a period appropriate to his age, he nevertheless was so great for a span of five years, especially in his expansion of the city, that Trajan with justification would claim that all the emperors were far different from him—for five years!

Anon. Epit. de Caes. 5.1–3. Domitius Nero had Domitius Ahenobarbus as his father and Agrippina as his mother, and he ruled for thirteen years. 2. For a five-year period, he seemed tolerable. As a result of this, some have recorded that Trajan was accustomed to saying that the principes as a group were far different from Nero—for a five-year period. 3. Here in the city, he constructed an amphitheater and baths.

The accession of Nero is celebrated throughout the empire.

P.Oxy. VII.1021 (Greek. Smallwood 47). Having fulfilled his service to his ancestors, the manifest god Caesar has also gone to join them, and the anticipated and hoped-for Emperor of the world has been appointed; and the good spirit of the world, Nero, who is the greatest source of good things, has been made Emperor. Accordingly we should all show our gratitude to all the gods by wearing garlands and sacrificing oxen.

In the first year of Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, on the 21st day of the month New Augustus.

We know that, upon the death of Augustus, it was Tiberius who wrote to the legati of the imperial provinces to inform them about it (Tac. Ann. 1.7.3). It may be that in the case of Claudius’s death and Nero’s accession it was Agrippina who ensured that the necessary authorities were informed. In Egypt, the communication would have gone to Alexandria and then been sent from there to local officials. This fragment of papyrus was found in the Egyptian city of Oxyrhynchus. The local official, the strategos, seems to have made his own copy of the text, since the papyrus copy looks like a rough draft, with several corrections.

New Augustus (Neos Sebastos) was the old Egyptian month of Hathyr (November–December), and the date given here, the twenty-first day, if correctly transcribed, would be November 17 in the modern Western calendar. This would mean that it took thirty-five days for the message to travel from Rome to Alexandria to Oxyrhynchus. Caution must be exercised, however. Papyri and stone inscriptions are seldom clear-cut, and wear and tear make transcription difficult and at times impossible. Greeks used letters of the alphabet for numbers, and 21 is based on a reading of κα´ (20 followed by 1), but the a is barely legible, and almost any number in the twenties is possible.

Nero honors the memory of Claudius.

Tac. Ann. 13.3.1. On the day of the funeral, Nero proceeded with the eulogy of Claudius.1 While he held forth on the antiquity of his family, and his ancestors’ consulships and triumphs, he and everyone else remained serious.² His comments on Claudius’s cultural pursuits, and the fact that during his rule there had been no mishap in external affairs, also received a favorable hearing.³ But when he turned to Claudius’s foresight and wisdom, no one could hold back his laughter. And yet the speech, being a composition of Seneca’s, had a large measure of sophistication, the man being possessed of a talent that charmed and was well adapted to the contemporary ear.⁴

2. Older people, whose spare time is spent comparing past and present, observed that Nero was the first of all the holders of the supreme power to have needed another man’s rhetoric, for the dictator Caesar was a match for the best orators, and Augustus had a ready and articulate delivery, and one befitting an emperor.⁵ Tiberius, too, had a skillful manner of weighing his words and was able to express his sentiments with force or with deliberate ambiguity. Even Gaius Caesar’s disturbed mind did not spoil the power of his speaking.6 In Claudius, too, when he was delivering a prepared speech, one would not find elegance lacking.⁷ 3. In Nero’s case, he turned his lively intellect elsewhere right from his early years—to engraving, painting, singing, and chariot driving.⁸ Sometimes, too, in his verse composition he demonstrated that he had the basic elements of literary skill.

Nero lays out his program of government.

Tac. Ann. 13.4.1. The charade of sorrow completed, Nero entered the Curia and, after some preliminary remarks on the authority of the senators and the consensus of the military, he observed that he had advice and examples available to make his administration exceptional.⁹ His youth had not been steeped in civil wars or domestic strife, he said, and he brought with him no animosities, no wrongs to be righted, and no thirst for revenge.¹⁰ 2. He then sketched the outlines of his coming principate, disassociating himself especially from matters that had recently caused burning resentment.¹¹ He would not be a judge in all cases, he said, with informers and defendants confined in one house where the influence of a few would be at work.¹² There would be no bribery in his home, no room for influence peddling. His house and the state were separate.13 The Senate should retain its ancient functions; Italy and the “public” provinces should address themselves to the tribunals of the consuls. They would grant them access to the Senate, while he himself would see to the armies that were his charge.¹⁴

Nero’s early actions match the program he laid out.

Tac. Ann. 13.5.1. Nero did not break his word either, and many measures were implemented on senatorial authority. Pleading a case for payment or gifts was to be disallowed,¹⁵ and quaestors designate would not be obliged to give gladiatorial shows.¹⁶ The second of these Agrippina opposed as being a reversal of Claudius’s legislation, but the senators carried it nonetheless. (They used to be summoned to the Palatium just so that Agrippina could be present, standing at a doorway added at the back and separated from the proceedings by a curtain, which kept her out of sight but did not prevent her hearing.¹⁷ 2. In fact, when representatives of the Armenians were pleading the cause of their people before Nero, she was preparing to mount the emperor’s tribunal and preside with him, and would have done so but for Seneca, who, while the others were paralyzed with fear, advised the emperor to go to meet his mother as she approached. Thus, disgrace was obviated by a show of filial devotion.)18

FIGURE 3. RIC² Nero 2, Silver Denarius. Obverse: AGRIPP(ina) AVG(usta) DIVI CLAVD(ii) NERONIS CAES(aris) MATER, “Agrippina Augusta, wife of the deified Claudius, mother of Nero Caesar.” Reverse: NERONI CLAVD(io) DIVI F(ilio) CAES(ari) AVG(usto) GERM(anico) IMP(eratori) TR(ibunicia) P(otestate), “To Nero Claudius, son of the deified one, Caesar Augustus Germanicus, Imperator, with Tribunician Authority.” EX S(enatus) C(onsulto), “By a decree of the Senate.” From the collection of Andreas Pangerl ∕ romancoins.info.

As Claudius’s designated successor, Nero had appeared on some striking Claudian coins. The issues that heralded his own reign were if anything even more innovative. Gold and silver coins that appeared from the Roman mint during Nero’s first year, beginning in late 54, depict facing busts of Nero and his mother. The legend identifying Agrippina as Agrippina Augusta, the wife of Claudius and the mother of Nero, appears on the obverse, and Nero’s own legend is reserved for the back of the coin, together with the familiar motif of the oak wreath (the corona civica, originally an oak wreath bestowed on a soldier for saving the life of a comrade in action), emphasizing tradition, with the legend ex sc (ex senatus consulto: “with senatorial authority”) (see Figure 3). This arrangement conveys a remarkable association of emperor and mother, hinting that Agrippina was promoting herself as a kind of unprecedented co-ruler alongside her son. The absence of “consul” in Nero’s title suggests (but cannot prove) that the dies were cut for this type before January 1, 55, when he assumed the consulship.

Gold and silver imperial coinage did not normally carry the legend SC, which was generally reserved for the lower-value coinage. The significance of the legend has been much debated, but it is possible that its appearance on some Neronian precious metal issues is meant to convey deference to the Senate.

FIGURE 4. RIC² Nero 7, Silver Denarius. Obverse: NERONI CLAVD(io) DIVI F(ilio) CAES(ari) AVG(usto) GERM(anico) IMP(eratori) TR(ibunicia) P(otestate) COS (Consuli), “To Nero Claudius, son of the deified one, Caesar Augustus Germanicus, Imperator, with Tribunician Authority, Consul.” Reverse: AGRIPP(ina) AVG(usta) DIVI CLAVD(ii) NERONIS CAES(aris) MATER, “Agrippina Augusta, wife of the deified Claudius, mother of Nero Caesar.” EX S(enatus) C(onsulto), “By a decree of the Senate.” From the collection of Andreas Pangerl ∕ romancoins.info.

Agrippina’s declining influence over Nero has been detected in his coins of AD 55. A gold and silver series issued in January 55, in the first year of the reign but after the assumption of Nero’s first consulship, still shows Nero and Agrippina on the obverse, but the heads on this slightly later issue are now “jugate,” both facing the same way (right), with Nero’s superimposed over his mother’s (see Figure 4). Moreover, Nero’s legend now appears on the obverse, while Agrippina’s is restricted to the reverse, which depicts the deified Claudius on a chariot pulled by elephants. It has been argued that this series, following the initial one with facing heads, indicates a subtle downgrading of Agrippina’s status. But one should be cautious. Issues of the “initial” series, although technically limited to only the first two and a half months of 54, are far commoner than the “second,” which were minted during the first nine and a half months of 55. This suggests, as one might have expected, that although the dies were cut in late 54 for the first series, the coins produced continued to be issued through the following year, so that, for practical purposes, the two series were contemporaneous. It would be a curious measure to demote an individual by according her what was still an outstanding honor with a barely discernible diminution from a slightly earlier honor. It is certainly the case that when the jugate type was introduced by Ptolemy II of Egypt in the third century BC to celebrate his marriage to his sister, Arsinoe II, the type was intended to convey an honor (Müller [2009], 353–64).

One of the most striking portraits of Nero around the time of his accession comes from Aphrodisias in the province of Asia. This city, with a strong tradition of loyalty to the Julio-Claudians, constructed a Sebasteion (Augusteum), a special shrine dedicated to Aphrodite (Venus, the founder of the Julian line) and to the emperors and the people. It contains reliefs of the imperial family, including the one illustrated in Figure 5. This depicts a youthful Nero dressed as a soldier but wearing civilian footwear. He is receiving a laurel crown from the right hand of a female figure, who carries in her left hand a cornucopia, representing plenty, the symbol of Demeter. The female figure is generally identified as Agrippina, possibly correctly (another relief from the same building depicts Claudius clasping the hand of a female figure thought also to be Agrippina), but the identification would mean that Aphrodisias was making a very overt statement about Agrippina’s role in the succession. It could be that the figure is a personification of Rome or the like.

To view this image, please refer to the print version of this book

FIGURE 5. Relief from the Sebasteion, Aphrodisias, Caria. From the Aphrodisias Archives.

Tac. Ann. 13.10.1. That same year, Nero petitioned the Senate for a statue in honor of his father, Gnaeus Domitius,19 and for consular insignia for Asconius Labeo,20 whom he had had as a guardian. He also refused the offer of solid silver or gold statues for himself. Furthermore, despite a vote of the fathers that the calendar year should commence with the month of December (the month in which Nero was born), he kept the first of January as the start of the year because of its venerable religious associations.²¹ 2. Nor were charges entertained in the case of the senator Carrinas Celer (who was accused by a slave),²² or of the Roman knight Julius Densus, the charge against whom was based on his support for Britannicus.²³

11.1. In the consulship of Claudius Nero and Lucius Antistius,²⁴ when the magistrates swore the oath to uphold the legislative measures of the emperors, Nero forbade his colleague Antistius to swear to uphold the measures he himself had passed.²⁵ This drew fulsome praise from the senators, who hoped that his young mind, elated by the glory arising from even trivial gestures, might immediately proceed to more substantial ones. 2. Then came his clemency toward Plautius Lateranus, who had been demoted from his rank for adultery with Messalina.26 Nero restored him to the Senate, committing himself to leniency in a string of speeches that Seneca, by putting them in Nero’s mouth, brought to public attention, either to attest to the nobility of his instruction or to showcase his talent.

Suetonius turns to Nero’s positive traits.

Suet. Ner. 9.1. He began his reign with a display of filial piety. He gave Claudius a splendid funeral, at which he delivered a eulogy and declared him a god.²⁷ To the memory of his father, Domitius, he paid the greatest honor. …²⁸

He founded a colony at Antium,²⁹ for which he enlisted veterans of the praetorian guard and added to them the richest of the senior centurions, who were obliged to leave their homes.³⁰ He also built a harbor there, which was a very expensive operation.³¹

FIGURE 6. RIC² Nero 394, Brass Sestertius. Obverse: NERO CLAVD(ius) CAESAR AVG(ustus) GER(manicus) P(ontifex) M(aximus) TR(ibunicia) P(otestate) IMP(erator) Pater P(atriae), “Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, Chief Priest, with Tribunician Authority, Imperator, Father of the Country.” Reverse: CONGI(arium) I DAT(um) POP(ulo) S(enatus) C(onsulto), “The first donative given to the people. By a decree of the Senate.” From the collection of Andreas Pangerl ∕ romancoins.info.

The donative made in AD 54 was commemorated in sestertii issued later in the 60s, as the mature obverse portrait on the sestertius in Figure 6 makes clear. On the reverse, Nero sits on a platform at the left. Above him and facing him stands Minerva, holding an owl in her right hand and a spear in her left. To her left stands Liberalitas, holding a token for the donative. In front of Nero, a seated assistant hands out a donation to someone who is clearly a Roman citizen, as indicated by his toga. He has one foot on the platform and is holding out his right hand to receive the donation while folding his toga with his left hand to receive it. A child stands behind him.

Tacitus (Ann. 13.31.2) records a donative of 400 sestertii made in AD 57. This may be the one referred to by Suetonius, who seems, however, to place it in 54, at the beginning of the reign. Tacitus’s reference may in fact be to a second (separate) donative, also commemorated in coins similar to the one illustrated in Figure 6 but with the legend CONG II.

The legend SC on the coin should be taken to represent a real or symbolic role for the Senate in the issuance of the coin. It does not imply a role of the Senate in the donative.

Suet. Ner. 10.1. To underline his good character even more convincingly, he declared that his rule would follow the principles of Augustus, and he let slip no opportunity to show his generosity and clemency, and even his affability.32 The heavier indirect taxes he either abolished or reduced.³³ Rewards for informers under the Papian law he cut to a quarter of their former amount.³⁴ He distributed 400 sestertii to every man among the common people,³⁵ for each senator who was of very high birth but left destitute he established an annual salary, amounting to 5,000 sestertii in some cases,³⁶ and for the praetorian cohorts there was a monthly allowance of cost-free grain.³⁷ 2. Furthermore, when called on to sign the warrant for the execution of a man condemned to death (as was normal practice), he declared: “How I wish I had never learned to read and write!”38 He greeted people of all classes by name without hesitation and accurately.

When the Senate gave thanks to him, he replied: “Do that when I’ve deserved it.” He allowed even the plebs to come to his exercises on the Campus,³⁹ and quite frequently gave declamations in public.⁴⁰

He also read out his poetry, not just at home but in the theater as well.⁴¹ Such was everybody’s delight over this that public thanksgiving was offered by decree for his recitation, and the relevant parts of his poetry were dedicated to Capitoline Jupiter inscribed in letters of gold. …

15.1. In dispensing justice, he did not readily reply to plaintiffs except in writing and on the following day.⁴² His standard practice in trying cases was to avoid continuous pleadings and to have each detail of the suit discussed in turn by the parties involved.⁴³ Whenever he withdrew to consult advisers,⁴⁴ he would never discuss anything openly in a general meeting with them; rather, he would silently and in seclusion read the opinions given in writing by each and then pronounce a verdict based on his personal feelings as though it were a majority decision.45

2. For a long time, he did not allow sons of freedmen into the Senate house, and he denied public office to those allowed in by former emperors.⁴⁶ Candidates in excess of the number of seats available he put in charge of legions to console them for the delay caused by the deferment.⁴⁷ He often conferred the consulship for a six-month period. If one of the consuls died toward the first of January, he appointed no replacement,⁴⁸ expressing disapproval of the old case of Caninius Rebilus, who was consul for a single day.⁴⁹ He conferred triumphal insignia on a number of people of quaestorian rank and on some from the equestrian order, and not exclusively for military accomplishments.⁵⁰ Speeches that he sent to the Senate on certain topics he would often have read out by a consul, ignoring the fact that it was a quaestor’s responsibility.51

16.1. He devised a new structure for the city’s buildings and ensured that before apartment buildings and private houses there stood colonnades, from the terraces of which fires could be fought, and he erected these at his own expense. He had also intended to extend the city walls as far as Ostia and bring seawater into the old city with a canal. …⁵²

Dio 61.3.1. Nero was seventeen when he took power.⁵³ He entered the camp, and reading aloud what Seneca had written out promised them everything that Claudius had granted them.⁵⁴ The address that he read out to the Senate, also drafted by Seneca, was of much the same tenor, so that a vote was passed that it be inscribed on a silver tablet and always read out at the start of the new consuls’ term of office. The senators, then, were also prepared for a good reign, as if they had some contract assuring it.

In the first year of Nero’s new power as emperor, Seneca wrote two highly contrasted works. The Apocolocyntosis, a parody of Claudius’s official deification, is in fact anonymous, but almost certainly written by Seneca. De Clementia, the other work published in the same year, was more earnest and more substantial. It was ostensibly in praise of the merciful nature of the young emperor, whose love of his citizens was reciprocated by them, but in reality it aimed as much to show Nero what he ought to become as what he was. Ironically, this work must have been composed at a time when many in the court believed that Nero had already ensured the death of his younger brother Britannicus by poisoning (Chapter III). De Clementia 1.1. I have set out to write about clemency, Nero Caesar, so as to take on the role of a mirror and demonstrate to you that you will reach the greatest pleasure of all. For although the true profit of righteous deeds is to have performed them, and no reward for virtuous actions is worthy of them beyond the actions themselves, it gives one pleasure to consider and survey a good conscience, and then to cast one’s eyes on that vast mob, fractious, quarrelsome, and uncontrollable (which will by its lack of control bring about others’ ruin and its own, if it breaks this yoke of yours), and to converse with oneself like this:

2. “Have I of all mortals found favor and been chosen to fulfill on earth the function of the gods? Am I the arbiter of life and death for its peoples? Has whatever destiny and status in life anyone possesses been placed in my hands? Does Fortune announce from my lips whatever she wishes to be granted to each man among mortals? Do peoples and cities draw reasons for rejoicing from my responses? Does no area flourish anywhere unless by my wish and favor? Will these thousands of swords that my peace restrains be drawn at the nod of my head? Which nations are to be utterly laid low, which deported elsewhere, which granted liberty and which have it taken from them, which kings are to become slaves and whose heads to be encircled with the royal diadem, which cities are to be destroyed, and which are to rise up—does all this rest on my decision?”

3. In this great power that I have over the world, anger has not prompted me to unjust punishments, nor has youthful impulsiveness, nor the rashness and arrogance of men (which have often driven patience even from the most tranquil breasts), nor even that quality often to be found in great empires, pride in displaying one’s power through intimidation. My sword is sheathed—in fact is fastened in the sheath. My thrift in spilling even the meanest blood is great, and no one, though he lack all else, fails to find favor with me as a human being.

4. I keep my severity hidden but my mercy ready at hand. I hold myself back as if I am going to be accountable to those laws that I have brought out into the light from neglect and darkness. I am moved by the early years of one man, and the advanced years of another. I have shown pity to one because of his high rank, to another because of his low status. Whenever I had found no reason for mercy, I spared myself such action. Today, should the immortal gods demand it, I am ready to account for the human race.”

5. This, Caesar, you can boldly declare: everything that has come into your charge and protection is being diligently cared for; nothing has been taken from the state either by force or by stealth because of you. You have set your heart on the rarest quality not so far bestowed on any emperor: integrity. You do not waste your efforts, and that exceptional goodness of yours has not found ungrateful or malicious critics. You are now receiving your thanks. No one man has ever been so dear to any one person as you are to the Roman people—you are its great and lasting good! 6. But you have set a huge burden on your shoulders; no one speaks now of the deified Augustus or the early days of Tiberius Caesar, nor in wishing to imitate you does any man seek a model apart from you; what is demanded for their taste is your principate. This would be difficult if your goodness were not natural but assumed. Indeed no one can wear a mask for long, and feigned qualities quickly lapse back into their real nature, whereas those based on truth, which come from a solid base, so to speak, advance simply with time to a greater and superior condition.

1 Nero’s display of filial piety was something of a conventional pose. During a smooth transition of power, it was considered right and proper for a ruler to show deference to his predecessor, no matter how unpopular he had been. Hence, Caligula would even ask for divine honors for the widely disliked Tiberius, a request that was quietly and diplomatically shelved. Claudius was granted a funus censorium (“censor’s funeral”), which would have been particularly fitting in his case because he had held the censorship (Tac. Ann. 13.2.3; cf. Ann. 12.69.2, Dio 60.35.2).

2 The founder of the Claudian gens was Appius Claudius Sabinus, who, by conventional dating, was consul in 495 BC. Tacitus (Ann. 4.9.2) provides his Sabine name, Attus Clausus. Suetonius (Tib. 1.2) states that the Claudians could boast twenty-eight consuls, five dictators, seven censors, seven triumphs, and two ovations.

3 Suetonius (Claud. 41–42) lays out Claudius’s literary activities, which began at an early age and continued through his principate. When still young, he began a history, with the encouragement of Livy, completing two volumes, and later he undertook a second history, starting with the end of the civil wars, of which he completed eight volumes. He wrote an eight-volume autobiography and a defense of Cicero, as well as two works in Greek, twenty volumes on the Etruscans, and eight on Carthaginian history. He invented three new letters of the alphabet and wrote a book about them (they were abandoned after his death). A new wing of the museum of Alexandria was opened in Claudius’s honor and named after him.

4 Tacitus seems not to have been impressed by Seneca. The reference to his “charming” (amoenum) talent sounds condescending, and he implies that Seneca’s appeal did not last beyond his contemporaries. In Tacitus’s early book on oratory, the Dialogus, Seneca is not even mentioned. Quintilian (Inst. 10.1.125) makes a distinctly unenthusiastic defense of Seneca.

5 Cicero claims that his friend Atticus said that Julius Caesar was the most elegant of Latin orators, and there was no one to whom he should take second place (Brut. 252, 261). Tacitus (Dial. 21.5) and Quintilian (Inst. 10.1.114) speak highly of his abilities, but in more muted tones. Suetonius (Aug. 86.1) says that Augustus’s style was clear and elegant, and free of artifice.

6 Suetonius (Cal. 53.2) describes Caligula’s style as flowing and elegant.

7 Suetonius (Claud. 4.6) quotes Augustus as commenting that he was astonished by how impressive Claudius’s speeches were, given his problems with ordinary conversation.

8 It is to be noted that Tacitus does concede that Nero possessed a native intelligence, but feels that he squandered his talents.

9 Nero (or Seneca) lists the Senate first out of deference, although it is the second group, the military, in the form of the praetorian guard, that had been the key player. The “advice” is an oblique reference to Seneca and Burrus, and prime among the “examples” would be Augustus. Suetonius (Ner. 10.1) suggests that he specifically mentioned Augustus. Dio (61.3.1) records that this speech was so well received that the Senate ordered that it be inscribed on a silver column and read out annually.

10 Nero here can in a sense distance himself from Augustus, whose youth had been bedeviled by civil wars, and from his other predecessors, who had been beset by domestic strife (to which Augustus also had not been immune).

11 The format laid out by Nero, with its careful division of powers and responsibilities, is very close to that prescribed by Augustus.

12 Nero may well have broadly kept to this undertaking. The Pisonian conspirators are recorded as being tried by him in AD 65 (see Chapter VIII), but the only earlier instance of an in camera hearing mentioned in the sources is that of Fabricius Veiento, who had been trafficking in imperial privileges (Tac. Ann. 14.50.2). There is no other explicit case recorded for his reign. The contrast with Claudius is striking. Claudius’s reign had been characterized by a number of in camera hearings, of which the most notorious was probably the trial of Valerius Asiaticus in AD 47 (Tac. Ann. 11.1–3).

13 A major offender in this sphere had apparently been Messalina. Dio (60.17.5) speaks of foreigners buying citizenship through her or through the imperial freedmen.

14 Nero alludes to an ancient custom whereby deputations would present themselves to consuls or other magistrates when seated in the Assembly, and the consuls would then grant them access to the Senate (Livy 29.16.6).

15 The issue of the rights of advocates to receive a fee for their service was a complex and ongoing one. The Lex Cincia of 204 BC, which prohibited the acceptance of a fee, was revived by Augustus in 17 BC (Dio 54.18.2). Claudius took a more pragmatic position and fixed the fee at 10,000 sestertii (Tac. Ann. 11.7.4). Tacitus here speaks of the Senate, without imperial interference, reverting to the old Cincian law, but the gesture may have proved impractical. This may explain why, according to Suetonius (Ner. 17), Nero at some point seems to reaffirm Claudius’s measure. Even this commonsense approach was not a success, to judge from the huge sums apparently amassed through lawyers’ fees.

16 Tacitus (Ann. 11.22.2) records the motion, put forward under Claudius, that this obligation be placed on the quaestors. Suetonius here says that Nero lifted the obligation, and he observes (Dom. 4.1) that Domitian reintroduced it. But it is possible that in practice it did not disappear under Nero: the Life of Lucan (anonymous, possibly by Suetonius) states that Lucan, when quaestor (which would have been under Nero), put on a show “according to established tradition.”

17 The Roman Senate met in a number of locations in addition to the official Curia. These included the library of Apollo on the Palatine, adjoining the imperial palace (Suet. Aug. 29.3), initially to accommodate Augustus when he was elderly. Agrippina’s privilege was seen as a remarkable one. Dio (57.12.3) observes that even though Livia was practically in charge of the empire, she never committed the impropriety of entering the Senate chamber. There are several recorded instances where interested parties were permitted to observe the proceedings by standing at the formal entrance of the house. The four sons of Marcus Hortalus watched while their father pleaded for financial relief and he was subjected to a dressing down by Tiberius. Nero would later claim (Tac. Ann. 14.11.1) that Agrippina had tried to enter the actual chamber.

18 This incident is dated by both Tacitus and Dio to late 54. An embassy had arrived in Rome as a consequence of the Armenian crisis (see Chapter IV). It was apparently not anticipated that Agrippina would have a formal role in the ceremony. She was in fact accustomed to receiving delegations at the same time as Claudius, the most striking being the formal surrender of Caratacus in 51, when she sat on a neighboring dais as Claudius received the British leader (Tac. Ann. 12.37.4 [wrongly dating it to 50]; Dio 60.33.7). The tense situation on the occasion described here was cleverly resolved by Seneca (Dio 61.3.3–4 credits Burrus also). Dio saw the event as a turning point, when Seneca and Burrus were able to supplant Agrippina as the chief counselors of Nero.

19 The “same year” is AD 54. This chapter is the last entered by Tacitus for that year. The general good mood that Nero’s enlightened promises provoked was enhanced by the diplomatic successes that he achieved in Parthia (see Chapter IV). The Arval record shows that Domitius’s birthday, December 11, was celebrated in 55 (Smallwood 19.29); the record for 54 is missing. It is likely that Nero’s request was made on the occasion of the birthday (see Suet. Ner. 9.1). By now, Domitius had been dead some fifteen years.

20 Asconius is not otherwise known, but he may be related to the famous grammarian and historian Quintus Asconius Pedianus. A child was placed in tutela (in guardianship) upon the death of the paterfamilias. Asconius had presumably been appointed either upon the death of Domitius or upon the death of the wealthy Crispus Passienus, Agrippina’s second husband.

21 In fact, the tradition of beginning the official year on the calends of January was not an ancient one but had been established in 153 BC. On Nero’s birthday, see the appendix to Chapter I.

22 Carrinas is otherwise unknown. Normally, slaves were not allowed to testify against their masters. The restriction was lifted in cases involving treason (maiestas) or incest.

23 Julius Densus is also unknown. His case illustrates that trials in the Senate did not exclusively involve juries of peers; there are several instances of knights being tried in the Senate. Presumably, Densus’s case involved an attempt to revive the maiestas law.

24 We now pass into AD 55. Claudius assumed the consulship at the beginning of his reign, and Nero followed his example. He held the office for two months of the year (Suet. Ner. 14).

25 The oath to uphold the acts (acta) of the princeps, and of his predecessors (unless they were deliberately excluded from the formula), was taken first by the magistrates and then by all the senators. It developed from the oath recorded for the year 45 BC, which took the form of pledging to take no action against the official acts of Caesar (App. BC 2.106), and was reinforced by the triumvirs at the beginning of 42 BC (Dio 47.18.3). Dio records that in 29 BC the Senate ratified the acts of Octavian (51.20.1). Tiberius took the oath to uphold the acts of Augustus (Dio 57.8.5), but he refused the request of the Senate that it do the same for his own (Tac. Ann. 1.72.1; Dio 57.8.4).

26 Plautius Lateranus was accused of adultery with Messalina in 48. He was spared the death penalty by Claudius because of the distinguished services of his uncle but was expelled from the Senate (Tac. Ann. 11.30.2, 36.4). He would return to the Senate in 55 (Tac. Ann. 13.11.2) and later join the Pisonian conspiracy of 65 against Nero (Tac. Ann. 15.49.3, 60.1; see Chapter IV). His property was then confiscated and supposedly given later to the Christian church, preserving his memory in the name of the Lateran cathedral. His uncle was Aulus Plautius, commander of the expeditions against Britain.

27 Despite Suetonius’s assertion, divine honors were the monopoly of the Senate, although they were presumably granted upon the petition of the emperor. Throughout his reign, Nero described himself on his coins as divi filius, son of one who had been deified. At Suet. Claud. 45, there is a suggestion that Nero did not treat the deification with respect (see also Plin. Pan. 11.1).

28 Tacitus (Ann. 13.10.1) observes that Nero petitioned the Senate for a statue of Domitius, and he suggests that this occurred near the end of the year. If so, Suetonius has not been punctilious in restricting himself to the program laid out by Nero at the very outset of the reign.

29 Antium held a special place in Nero’s affections, since he was born there. There was already a colony there, but it had lost many of its settlers, who had moved away, and there was a further unsuccessful attempt to boost its population in AD 60 (Tac. Ann. 14.27.2–3).

30 Members of the praetorian guard were able to retire after sixteen years of service. Their better pay (two denarii a day at the time of Tiberius’s accession) would have made them welcome in the colony. Legionary senior centurions (primipili) were relatively well paid, and they received a bonus upon their retirement (Suet. Cal. 44.1; Dio 55.23.1).

31 The date and nature of the harbor at Antium have been much debated. It may have been built in connection with the imperial villa there or may have had a broader function as a safe haven for grain ships from Egypt.

32 In his account of this episode, Tacitus does not specifically mention the name of Augustus (Tac. Ann. 13.4.1), but his presence is implied. There was something of a tradition for emperors to aspire to the Augustan precedent, especially to make a contrast with a recently deceased predecessor, as did Caligula at the funeral of Tiberius (Dio 59.3.8). In particular, of course, they would want to be associated with the Augustan ideals of generosity (liberalitas) and clemency (clementia) (Suet. Aug. 41: liberalitas; Suet. Aug. 51: clementia).

33 Suetonius refers here to vectigalia, indirect taxes, such as those levied on goods upon entry and departure. Tacitus (Ann.13.50.2–3) suggests that Nero wanted to go further than what Suetonius suggests and considered abolishing vectigalia totally because of the outrageous exactions of the publicani, who collected the dues. He was dissuaded by his advisers because of the financial chaos it would create (the military treasury was financed from vectigalia) and because of the near certainty that it would lead to a demand for the abolition of direct taxes, paid only outside Italy as tributum. As a consequence, Nero limited himself to controlling the excesses of the tax collectors (Tac. Ann. 13.51.2). Tacitus (Ann. 13.31.2) reports that he removed the buyer’s tax of 4% on the purchase of slaves, but it was simply levied on the vendor, who added it to the price.

34 The Lex Papia-Poppaea marked the final stage of the legislation enacted by Augustus to encourage marriage and legitimate procreation. Those who did not marry or produce children were barred from inheritances, while a fruitful marriage resulted in advantages in a public career. The legislation created enormous hardships, prompting Tiberius to set up a committee to try to sort out the legal difficulties (Tac. Ann. 3.28.3). Clearly, under Nero, the problems persisted, and his measures were designed to discourage legal actions.

35 Julius Caesar had been the first to make distributions of cash to the populace instead of the traditional public gifts of wine or oil, and after him cash donations became regular imperial practice.

36 Tacitus (Ann. 13.34.1) records instances of senators helped financially by Nero. M. Valerius Messala Corvinus, great-grandson of the famous orator of the republican period and partner of Nero in the consulship of AD 58, received an allowance of 500,000 sestertii annually to subsidize his “honest poverty.” Tacitus also gives the names of Aurelius Cotta and Quintus Haterius Antoninus, even though they had squandered their family patrimony. No other cases are known, and Suetonius may have exaggerated somewhat.

37 The cost of grain was normally deducted from the praetorians’ pay. The measure mentioned here seems to belong to the aftermath of the Pisonian conspiracy when, Tacitus reports, the troops (almost certainly the praetorians) were rewarded with a donative of 2,000 sestertii each and remission of the price of grain (Ann. 15.72.1; see Chapter IV). It has been suggested that in 65 Nero in fact made a one-off remission of the grain charge for that particular month (see Bradley [1978] ad loc.). But this would have been a modest reward.

38 Seneca (Clem. 2.1.2) reports that, when pressed by Burrus to record his permission for the execution of two robbers, Nero declared that he wished he had never learned to write. Suetonius mentions only one condemned criminal, probably a simplification rather than the result of using a different source. The anecdote provides interesting evidence of the involvement of the emperor, even if only as a formality, in routine judicial executions.

39 The Campus Martius was a traditional place of exercise. Nero, like Caligula and Claudius before him, seems to have enjoyed a good relationship with the ordinary people, whatever problems they both encountered with other levels of society.

40 As an academic exercise, young Romans were given the task of delivering “declamations,” set pieces on contrived legal issues and unlikely historical scenarios. Suetonius seems to suggest that Nero continued the practice as emperor, although Tacitus (Ann. 13.3.2) considers him inferior to his imperial predecessors as an orator.

41 The recitation, where acquaintances would be invited to listen to someone’s work, was a well-established tradition of Roman life. It appears that Nero went beyond the normal boundaries and gave recitals in theaters.

42 The role of the emperor in legal proceedings is a well-established phenomenon, but our knowledge of the actual functioning of his court is very limited before the time of Trajan. The imperial trials do not seem to have followed fixed rules of procedure, unlike the regular praetorian courts. Suetonius seems to suggest that Nero sent personal notes to the parties in a case, which would clearly have involved a considerable investment of time if done conscientiously, and no other reference is made to the practice.

43 It seems that the procedure in imperial trials mentioned here—laying out the case in individual points rather than in a single speech—was actually introduced by Nero, probably to speed up the process. It seems to have proved a lasting innovation. Pliny the Younger refers to proceeding in court kata kephalaion (taking up the main points one by one) as a way of getting immediately to the truth (Ep. 6.22.2). Suetonius speaks of “standard practice,” but there is little direct evidence for trials actually conducted by Nero (see Tac. Ann. 4.2).

44 The emperor had a body of legal advisers to assist him, and they could offer advice on the possible outcome, but he would be under no obligation to follow that advice, and he had complete discretion in determining the penalty to be applied.

45 This passage shows that the practice of Nero was to receive written, rather than oral, submissions. Suetonius (Aug. 93) shows that Augustus tried a case without advisers.

46 By the Lex Visellia, the sons of freedmen were not allowed admission into the equestrian order until the third generation. The emperor could grant dispensations to those not of the senatorial order to enable them to enter a senatorial career, and the expression “for a long time” suggests that such dispensations were later made by Nero. There is no clear example of public office being withheld from those granted such by previous emperors.

47 Tacitus (Ann. 14.28.1) refers to this happening as a single incident under the year 60. Twelve praetors would have been elected to the office in what, to judge from the outcome, was a genuine election; three are recorded as unsuccessful, and in normal circumstances they would have waited until a later round, but in this instance they were given military commands. Of course, the year 60 was witness to serious military crises in Britain and Parthia, and this episode almost certainly reflects a one-off arrangement rather than the general policy implied by Suetonius.

48 The procedure established under the republic was that, if a consul left office in the course of the year, he was replaced by a “suffect” (Latin suffectus, “replacement”). Augustus institutionalized the system and required resignations in the course of the year to increase the number of suffects and thus the pool of potential administrative officers. From 5 BC, it became regular for consuls to resign in the course of the year, and the actual term could be relatively short. Suetonius’s claim that Nero sought to maintain a six-month period where possible cannot be confirmed, since we do not have complete consular records for his reign.

49 C. Caninius Rebilus held the consulship for one day in 45 BC, thus prompting many humorous quips by Cicero that Caninius did not manage to get any sleep during his consulship or that Cicero wanted to visit him during his term but night fell (Macrob. Sat. 7.3.10). A “one-day” term did not happen again until the one-day consulship of Roscius Regulus in 69 AD.

50 The culminating achievement of a military campaign, the “triumph” that followed a major victory in the field, was, from AD 19 on, the prerogative of the emperor and his family. Less well-connected commanders had to remain content with triumphal insignia. Tacitus (Ann. 15.72.2) records that, after the Pisonian conspiracy, Nero assembled the Senate and bestowed the triumphal insignia on the ex-consul Petronius Turpilianus, the praetor designate, Cocceius Nerva, and the praetorian prefect Tigellinus “as if it involved a military campaign.”

51 Of the twenty quaestors elected each year, two had the special designation “quaestor of Augustus,” being chosen personally by the emperor to represent him in the Senate during his absences. One of their duties would be to carry imperial messages to the Senate.

52 It has been argued that the incorporation of Ostia within the city boundary was to make up for the land that was taken over by the Golden House, but the Ostia reference here may be linked to Nero’s plan to build a canal between that city and Puteoli, traces of which survived to Tacitus’s own day (see Suet. Ner. 31.3; Tac. Ann. 15.42.2).

53 Dio most likely made a mistake with Nero’s age, since he was in fact almost certainly sixteen when Claudius died (see Chapter I appendix).

54 Dio alone provides the information that Seneca wrote Nero’s original address to the praetorians, as well as the one delivered to the Senate.