From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 (69 page)

16 TIBERIUS AND EMPEROR-WORSHIP. On Tiberius’ sensible attitude see Suetonius,
Tib.
10. This is also illustrated by an inscription from Gytheum in Laconia of A.D. 15 or 16, which quotes a letter of Tiberius in reply to the city’s intention to establish worship of Augustus, himself and Livia; he deprecates divine honours for himself.
See Ehrenberg and Jones,
Docum
. n. 102; partial translation in Lewis and Reinhold,
Rn. Civ.
ii. p. 560. A Cypriote oath of allegiance to Tiberius on his accession has been preserved (see T. B. Mitford,
JRS
, 1960, 75). This in itself is of interest, as also is the fact that the Cypriots swore by (among other deities) Roma and the deified Augustus, since in Asia the cult of Roma disappeared when that of the emperor was established. The Cypriots promised to worship Tiberius and all his house and proposed the voting of divine honours to Roma, Tiberius and the sons of his blood [p. 236]

16a FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES, A.D. 33. See Tenney Frank,
AJP
, 1935, 336 ff. and C. Rodewald,
Money in the Age of Tiberius
(1976). [p. 237]

17 SOURCES FOR GAIUS. Suetonius,
Gaius Caligula
; Dio Cassius, book 59; Josephus,
Ant. Iud.
xviii, 205–xix, 211; Philo,
In Flaccum: Legatio ad Gaium
; books 7 and 8 of Tacitus’
Annals
, which dealt with Gaius, are lost. E. M. Smallwood,
Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius and Nero
(1967). On the sources see M. P. Charlesworth,
Cambr. Hist. Journ.
, 1933, 105 ff. Modern works: J. P. V. D. Balsdon,
The Emperor Gaius
(1934); E. Koberlein,
Caligula und die ägyptischen Kulte
(1962). See also Balsdon on the principates of Gaius and Claudius,
Aufstieg
, II, ii, 86 ff. [p. 239]

18 THE ACCESSION OF GAIUS. The enthusiasm with which provincial cities took the oath of allegiance is shown by two inscriptions from Aritium in Lusitania (Dessau,
ILS
, 190) and Assos in Asia (Dittenberger, n. 797); they are translated in Lewis and Reinhold,
Rn. Civ.
ii, 86 f. P. Ceausescu,
Historia
, 1973, 269 ff., argues that Gaius, by curtailing the annual Games that celebrated the battle of Actium, was seeking to reconcile East and West. Unlike Augustus and Tiberius, Gaius was a
privatus
and had greater need of a comprehensive grant of legal powers by a
lex de imperio
(such as had been passed for Tiberius and possibly for Augustus); see above ch. xi, n. 12 and P. A. Brunt,
JRS
, 1977, 95 ff. [p. 239]

18a GAIUS’ MENTAL STABILITY. Some historians would minimize the difference between the early and later parts of Gaius’ rule: this should be attributed less to severe mental disturbance than to increased exasperation in a weak man suddenly wielding unlimited authority. Thus, e.g., A. Garzetti,
From Tiberius to the Antonines
(1974), 84. Cf. also V. Massaro and I. Montgomery,
Latomus
, 1978, 894 ff. [p. 240]

19 BRITAIN. R. W. Davies,
Historia
, 1966, 124 ff., questions the usual view that Gaius intended to invade Britain; his views have been rejected by P. Bicknell,
Historia
, 1968, 496 ff., who, very speculatively, transfers the sea-shell episode from the English Channel to the Insula Batavorum in Lower Germany! [p. 241]

19a BOSPORUS. On Gaius’ policy in the Bosporus see A. A. Barrett,
TAPA
, 1977, 1 ff. [p. 241]

20 THE SENATE AT ALEXANDRIA. On the vexed question of the existence of a Greek Senate at this period, see A. Momigliano,
JRS
, 1944, 114, for the view that it did exist. [p. 241]

21 ACTA ALEXANDRINORUM. See H. A. Musurillo,
The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs
(1954) for text and commentary. [p. 242]

22 HEROD AGRIPPA. On this amiable scoundrel see M. P. Charlesworth,
Five Men: Character Studies from the Roman Empire
(1936), ch.i. [p. 242]

23 AVILLIUS FLACCUS. For this Prefect and the trouble in Alexandria see the commentary by H. Box on
Philonis Alexandrini, In Flaccum
(1939). [p. 242]

24 JEWISH EMBASSY TO GAIUS. On this see E. Mary Smallwood’s useful commentary on Philo’s
Legatio ad Gaium
(1961). On the chronology see A. Garzetti,
From Tiberius to the Antonines
(1974), 582 f.[p. 242]

1 SOURCES FOR CLAUDIUS (A.D. 41–54). The chief literary sources are Tacitus,
Ann
. xi–xii (= A.D. 47–54), the books covering the early part of the reign being lost; Suetonius,
Divus Claudius
; Dio Cassius, lx; Seneca,
ad Polybium, Apocolocyntosis
; Josephus,
Bell. Iud.
ii, 204,
Ant. Iud.
xix, 212, etc. E. M. Smallwood,
Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius and Nero
(1967). On Claudius’ speeches see R. Syme,
Tacitus
(1958), 703 ff. Coins: works cited in ch. XI, n. 1. Modern works: A. Momigliano,
Claudius
²
(1961; with a new bibliography); V. M. Scramuzza,
The Emperor Claudius
(1940). [p. 243]

2 CLAUDIUS AND THE PRAETORIANS. He kept his debt to the Guard before the eyes of the public by two issues of coins, which depicted the Praetorian barracks and the mutual greeting, with legends, respectively, imper(ator) recept(us) and praetor(iani) recept(i in fidem): see H. Mattingly and E. A. Sydenham,
Rom. Imp. Coinage
, I, pl. v. [p. 243]

3 REFORM OF ALPHABET. Claudius proposed, and later introduced, three new letters:
C = ps;
= a sound between u and i;
= consonantal v as opposed to the vowel. They did not survive very long. [p. 244]

4 CLAUDIUS AND THE SENATE. On Claudius and the aristocracy see a series of articles by D. McAlindon:
AJP
, 1956, 113 ff.; 1957, 279 ff.;
JRS
, 1957, 191 ff.;
CR
, 1957, 108;
Latomus
, 1957, 252 ff. From A.D. 47 Claudius’ control over the Senate will have increased. It is often said that Claudius restored the elections to the Senate, but Dio Cassius (59. 20) implies that Gaius himself had already done so. On the personal part played by Roman emperors (not least Claudius) in the administration of the empire see F. Millar, ‘Emperors at Work’,
JRS
, 1967, 9 ff. For a revised list of consuls during Claudius’ reign see P. Gallivan,
Cl.Qu.
, 1978, 407 ff. On Claudius’ attitude to the Principate and his emulation of Julius Caesar see B. M. Levick,
AJP
, 1978, 78 ff. [p. 245]

5 JUDICIAL PAPYRUS. See Smallwood,
op. cit.
, n. 367, and cf. Scramuzza,
op. cit.
, 110 ff. [p. 245]

6 PROCURATORS. On their functions see Tac.
Ann.
, xii. 60, and F. Millar,
JRS
, 1964, 180 ff., and P. A. Brunt,
Latomus
, 1966, 461 ff. [p. 245]

7 FRUMENTATIONES. Claudius also, according to the usual view, transferred the distribution of corn from the senatorial
praefecti frumenti dandi
to the imperial
praefectus annonae
, and the cost of the
frumentationes
from the Aerarium to the Fiscus. This would lighten the Senate’s burden, but would increase the emperor’s popularity and make the dole appear as an imperial gift. G. E. F. Chilver, however, has argued (
Amer. Journ. Phil.
1949, 7 ff.) that the
praefecti frumenti dandi
did not disappear and that in this sphere the princeps and Senate had in fact co-operated more closely than is generally believed from the time of Augustus onwards. (This view depends in part on the dating of the careers of two such
praefecti
: on this see also H. G. Pflaum,
Historia
, ii, 1954, 431 ff.) Claudius established an efficient organization for the distribution of the corn-dole at the Porticus Minucia in Rome. On the
frumentationes
see D. van Berchem,
Les distributions de blé et d’argent à la plèbe romaine sous l’empire
(1939) and G. Rickman,
The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome
(1980). The latter (73 ff., 213 ff.) takes the view that the burden of financing the corn supply was more gradually shared by emperor and Senate rather than abruptly transferred from the Senate to Claudius; the problem was the relationship of the state and the individual rather than that of Senate and emperor. [p. 245]

8 PALLAS. On his career and influence see S. I. Oost,
AJP
, 1958, 113 ff. On Narcissus see J. Melmoux,
Stud. Class.
, 1975, 61 ff. [p. 246]

9 THE HARBOUR AT OSTIA. Traces of Claudius’ works survive and are revealed by airphotography: see J. Bradford,
Ancient Landscapes
(1957), 248 ff. and pls. 60 and 61. See further, R. Meiggs,
Roman Ostia
²
(1973). [p. 248]

10 CLAUDIUS AND THE ALEXANDRINE JEWS. On Gaius’ death fresh rioting broke out in Alexandria between Greeks and Jews (see p. 241f.) and further deputations waited on the new emperor. Claudius finally sent a letter to the Alexandrians, which is both firm and impartial: in effect he tells both Jews and Greeks to keep the peace and mind their own affairs: he refused the Jewish request for full citizen rights in Alexandria and he told the Greeks that he would not tolerate their attacks on the Jews: ‘I tell you once and for all that if you do not put an end to this ruinous and obstinate mutual enmity, I shall be forced to show you what a benevolent emperor can be when turned by righteous indignation.’ For the full text of this interesting and important document see Smallwood,
Documents
, n. 370; translation in Lewis and Reinhold,
Rn. Civ.
II, 366 ff. In A.D. 53 there was further trouble: according to the ‘Acts of Isodore and Lampon’ (see p. 242), Claudius heard a law-suit between these two anti-Jewish leaders and Agrippa II; the two men were put to death and were canonized as anti-Semitic nationalist martyrs. [p. 249]

11 ‘IMPULSORE CHRESTO.’ Suetonius [
Claud.
25) records: ‘Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit’ (cf.
Acts
, xviii, 2, on the expulsion). It is possible to believe that Chrestus was an unknown Jewish agitator (which is what Suetonius himself may have thought, but he may not have fully understood his source), but the identification with Jesus Christ is much more reasonable. Knowledge of Christianity may have reached the Jewish community in Rome and led to internal dissensions: in that sense Christ will have been the cause of the trouble.

Another problem arises with the imperial rescript found near Nazareth which threatens those who violate tombs with the unprecedently harsh penalty of death. The date of this inscription (see Smallwood,
Documents
, n. 377) might be Claudian and the suggestion has been made that because of these Jewish disturbances Claudius made some inquiries which revealed the anti-Christian version of the Resurrection, i.e. that the disciples had broken into the tomb and stolen the body of Jesus (cf. St. Matthew, xxviii, 12–15), and that Claudius then ordered copies of this rescript to be set up in Nazareth and Galilee to prevent similar troubles. For a discussion of the problems involved see A. Momigliano,
Claudius
, 35 ff. and F. de Zulueta,
JRS
, 1932, 184 ff. If the Claudian date for the document is not accepted, any connexion with the Resurrection is improbable. F. de Visscher (
Nouv. Clio
, 1953, 18 ff.) argues that the last four lines which threaten the death-penalty were added privately by the owner of the tomb, while J. H. Oliver (
Cl. Phil.
, 1954, 180 ff.) suggests that they were added by a local Roman authority who was not conversant with Roman practice. See also de Visscher,
Le droit des tombeaux romains
(1963), 161 ff. [p. 249]

11a MAURETANIA. On the annexation of Mauretania see D. Fishwick,
Historia
, 1971, 467 ff. [p. 250]

12 THE VOLUBILIS INSCRIPTION. See Smallwood,
Documents
n. 407. [p. 251]

13 THE ANNAUNIAN INSCRIPTION. See Smallwood,
Documents
, n. 368 (=
ILS
, 206); translation, Lewis and Reinhold,
Rn. Civ.
II, 130 f. [p. 252]

14 THE LYONS TABLET. Text in Smallwood n. 369; translation, Lewis and Reinhold,
op. cit.
, 133 ff. Tacitus’ version is in
Annals
xi, 23–5. For a recent comparison of the two versions see K. Wellesley,
Gr. and R.
, 1954, 13 ff. For a discussion of some of the problems raised by this document and for Claudius’ policy about citizenship in general see A. N. Sherwin-White,
Roman Citizenship
, 181 ff. [p. 252]

15 british tribes. A valuable source of evidence for the local dynasties in the period
before the Roman conquest is coinage (and their widespread use of coinage is in itself proof of their increasing civilization and trade); see D. Allen,
Archaeologia
, 1944, and
Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain
(ed. S. S. Frere, 1960), 97–308. On Camulodunum see C. F. C. Hawkes,
Reports of Research Com. of Soc. of Antiquaries
, xiv (1947), M. R. Hull,
ibid.
xx [1958]. Also C. E. Stevens, in
Aspects of Archaeology in Britain
(1951) and S. S. Frere,
Britannia
(1967), chs. 1–4. [p. 252]

16 THE CONQUEST OF BRITAIN. On Roman Britain in general see R. G. Collingwood,
Roman Britain and the English Settlements
²
(1937); P. Salway,
Roman Britain
(1981); I. A. Richmond,
Roman Britain
(1955); S. S. Frere,
Britannia
²
(1978); and, a brief sketch, H. H. Scullard,
Roman Britain: Outpost of the Empire
(1979). For the Claudian conquest, see Frere,
op. cit.
, ch. 5; G. Webster and D. R. Dudley,
The Conquest of Roman Britain
,
A.D
.
43–57
(1966), a popular work. The earliest Roman fort found at Valkenburg near Leyden in Holland may have been a supplybase for Claudius’ British expedition: see
JRS
, 1952, 129. For a photograph of the defences at Rutupiae see
JRS
, 1929, pl. xvii (cf. 1931, p. 246). On the battle of the Medway see A. R. Burn,
History
, 1953, 105 ff.; it may have been fought near Rochester. The career of Cogidumnus has been studied by A. A. Barrett,
Britannia
, 1979, 227 ff., in the light of the view of J. E. Bogaers,
id.
, 243 ff., that the broken stone of the famous inscription (Collingwood and Wright,
Rom. Inscr. Brit.
, n. 91) had been misread and that Cogidumnus was in fact described as ‘great king of Britain’ rather than as ‘king and legate of Augustus in Britain’ – ‘REG.MAGN.BRIT.’ rather than ‘R.LEGAT.AVG. IN BRIT.’. The inscription gives ‘R.I [… .] GN–BRIT’. For the attribution of the Fosse Way frontier to Plautius rather than to Ostorius Scapula see G. Graham,
Arch. Journ.
, 1958, 49 ff. On Queen Cartimandua see the article by I. A. Richmond,
JRS
, 1954, 43 ff. On the excavations at Maiden Castle, where the skeletons show the savage effects of Roman weapons, see R. E. M. Wheeler,
Reports of Research Com. of Soc. of Ant.
xii (1943). On Hod Hill see
JRS
, 1955, p. 141; I. A. Richmond and others,
Hod Hill
, II (1968). For the early occupation of Lincoln see
JRS
, 1949, 57 ff.; 1956, 22, D. F. Petch,
Arch. Journ.
, 1960, 40 ff.; and Kingsholm at Gloucester,
JRS
, 1942, 39 ff. and 1943, 15 ff., and I. A. Richmond and H. E. O’Neil,
Trans. Bristol Glos. Arch. Soc.
, 1962, 14 ff., 1965, 15 ff. On the length of Vespasian’s service in Britain see D. E. Eichholz,
Britannia
, 1972, 149 ff. On the temple of Claudius at Camulodunum see D. Fishwick,
Britannia
, 1972, 164 ff., who advances the unorthodox suggestion that under Claudius there may have been only an altar to Roma and Augustus, the temple being constructed only after Claudius’ death. [p. 255]