by David Grant
56.Suetonius Claudius 46; quoting Cassius Dio 61.35.
57.Tacitus 14.22 and 15.47. The sighting of 66 CE might have been a super nova as it had no tail according to Chinese astronomers.
58.See Atkinson (2009) pp 207-208 for a summary of Nero’s relationship to Roman Apollo; discussion in Champlin (2003) pp 112-113 for Nero’s associations with the heavens. The view and ‘solar monarchy’ is challenged by Fears Solar (1976).
59.Seneca Apolococyntosis 4, translation from Sullivan (1966) pp 383-384.
60.‘Actor-emperor’ was a term used by Pliny the Younger in his so-called Panegyricus Trajaini 46.4.
61.Quoting Desiderius Erasmus De Ratione Studii.
62.For the reporting of the death of Agrippina see Tacitus 14.1-8, Suetonius Nero 34, Cassius Dio 63.11-14.
63.Seneca Quaestiones Naturales, De Cometis 7.28.3.
64.Trajan’s praise of Nero’s first five years is mentioned in Aurelius Victor The Style of Life and the Manners of the Emperors, and in the anonymous epitome de Caesarbus 5. For his civic activity see Suetonius Nero 17 for the limit on legal fees; Tacitus 13.26 for his support for freedmen; and for the impeachment of government officials, Tacitus 13.30,14.18, 14.40,14.46. For Otho’s emulation of Nero see Plutarch Otho 3.2.
65.Following the observation of Champlin (2003) pp 116-117.
66.See Atkinson (2009) pp 209-210 for discussion of the similarity of Seneca Of Clemency.
67.Bosworth (2004) p 553.
68.Citharoedo principe was a term used by Juvenal in the Satires 8.198.
69.Suetonius Nero 38; Cassius Dio 62.16. Tacitus 15.39. He nevertheless reported there were rumours of Nero playing his lyre.
70.Tacitus 15.40 claimed five days; Suetonius Nero 38 claimed six days and seven nights and a pillar erected by Domitius claimed nine days.
71.Tacitus 15.40.
72.Tacitus 15.42-45.
73.For Pliny’s treatment of the Christians see Pliny Epistulae (to Trajan) 10.96. Tacitus 15.42-45 for the guilt heaped upon the Christians.
74.Tacitus 15.44.
75.For the use of elephants see Spartianus Life of Hadrian 19.
76.For Germanicus’ attributes and his suspicious death see Suetonius Caligula 1-5.
77.For Otho’s homosexual relations with Nero see Suetonius Galba 22.
78.Vitruvius De Architectura 8.6.10-11, Pliny 34, 54.175-178. The principal claim that lead contributed to the fall of Rome was published by JO Nriagu in March 1983 titled Saturnine gout among Roman aristocrats. Did lead poisoning contribute to the fall of the Empire? A more recent paper by H Delile titled Lead in ancient Rome’s city water confirmed the high levels, published by the University of Utah, Salt Lake City March 2014. The claim that lead contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire is generally considered extravagant, though the effects of lead poisoning on long-term users of lead cookware in Rome is not denied; this can result in insanity as well as infertility.
79.Suetonius Nero 35.3. Tacitus 16.6 recorded the same but attributed it to a casual outburst. Cassius Dio 63.27 suggested it could have been an accident.
80.For the various versions of Poppea’s death see Tacitus 16.6, Cassius Dio 63.27, Suetonius Nero 35.3.
81.Following Milns (1966) p 491 for arguments on the use of trepidare and an event yet to happen.
82.The main source for the Pisonian plot is Tacitus 15.47-65.
83.Quoting Tacitus 15.62; the ‘brother’ was a reference to Nero’s step-brother (and former brother-in-law), Britannicus, the heir designate who died mysteriously just a month before he would assume manhood and thus the emperorship and one day before his fourteenth birthday. Tacitus 13.14-16 and Suetonius Nero 33-34 claimed it was the work of Nero’s poisoner, Locusta.
84.Josephus 20.154-156. Compare with Tacitus 2.1.
85.Ker (2009) p 53. Pliny the Younger’s citation is from Epistulae 8.12.4-5 and references to Fannius at 5.5.3.
86.Seneca De Clementia 1.1; there are ten sentences connected to ‘swords’ (sheathing or drawing) in book 1.
87.Suetonius Nero 24.2. Romance 1.18-19 as an example of Alexander’s charioteering.
88.Champlin (2003) p 55 for fuller discussion on Nero’s entries into the games of Greece.
89.Suetonius Nero 25, Cassius Dio 63.20-21.
90.Tacitus 13.40 for the role of the archers against Tiridates in the campaign.
91.Lucan Pharsalia 10.2.
92.Bosworth (1983) p 152 citing Lucan Pharsalia 9.439-444 and Curtius 4.7.19.
93.See full accounts of Tiridates’ entry into Rome in Champlin (2003) pp 228-234 and also Cassius Dio 62, Tacitus 15, Pliny 30.6.16 all recorded elements of the events. For Nero’s attachment to Apollo see discussion in Champlin (2003) pp 276-286. Greek Helios was Latinised to Helius and Apollo to Apollo; both were associated with the Sun.
94.Cassius Dio 63.1-6.
95.Virgil Aeneid 5.190, 6.502,6.513; Bosworth (2004) p 553 for discussion.
96.The episode of Lysimachus’ caging with a lion appeared in Justin 15.3, Seneca de Ira 3.17.2, de Clementia 1.25, Pliny 8.16.21; he was most likely Alexander’s school teacher, not the Somatophylake. Heckel (2006) p 154 for the alternative identification of Lysimachus, discussed in chapter titled Classicus Scriptor, Rhetoric and Rome. For other similarities between Seneca and Curtius see Hamilton (1988) though Hamilton proposes Seneca followed Curtius.
97.If Seneca was following Curtius (as Wiedemann argued a century and a half ago) then it was Curtius who wrote in the untroubled days of Nero’s early term, though this argues against much we find in his encomium. What seems clear from other similarities is that one of them borrowed phraseology from the other. Hamilton (1988) p 447 for discussion of Wiedemann’s views. Seneca Epistle 94.62 ‘Toto orbe arma circumfert’ and Lucan Pharsalia 10.31 ff, ‘gladiumque per omnes Exegit gentes’. Hamilton (1988) pp 447-456 for the similarities, especially Seneca’s Epistles 56 and 59. For Chrystrom’s orations see SR Asirvatham in Carney-Ogden (2010) pp 196-200.
98.Curtius 10.5.26, translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1946.
99.For discussion on the use of these terms see Balot (2001) p XI, and p 291. Also see McKechnie (1999) p 103 for Curtius’ necrology and its vocabulary at 10.5.26-34.
100.Curtius 10.5.37.
101.Nero’s associating himself with Alexander discussed in chapter titled Classicus Scriptor, Rhetoric and Rome and Mythoi, Muthodes and the Birth of Romance. See Whitmarsh (2002) p 175 for the comment on Trajan and the transition in Roman opinion. Aelian 3.32 for Alexander playing the cithara.
102.Suetonius Nero 19 for the phalanx. Suda α 1128= FGrH 618 T2 for Alexander of Aegae.
103.Pausanias 10.7.1 and 10.19.2 for the looting of statues and Cassius Dio 63.14 for the blocking up of the fissure. Full discussion of other sources in Champlin (2003) pp 133-134.
104.Homer Iliad 5.83, the original lines referring to the death of minor status Trojan soldiers.
105.Ammianus Marcellinus 4.8.10; discussed in Fears (1976) p 221.
106.Josephus Jewish Wars 2.95, and Josephus 17.319, 18.28 for the renaming to Neronia.
107.See discussion in McKechnie (999) p 49.
108.Discussed in more detail in chapter titled Babylon: the Cipher and Rosetta Stone.
109.See Errington (1970) pp 50-51 for comparisons between Arrhidaeus and Claudius. For Tiberius’ reticence to assume power see Suetonius Tiberius 24 and for the quip Tiberius 21.2.
110.Tacitus 11.2.1-11.5 for the trial of Asiaticus and the indictments that followed, and following the discussion in Baynham (1998) p 174.
111.Curtius 10.9.1 and quoting Atkinson (2009) p 205 on its relevance to Nero’s suspicions of conspirators if indeed Curtius’ words were related to the encomium.
112.For arguments against Seneca and Lucan drawing from Curtius see Fears (1976) pp 216-217. In contrast, their use of Curtius has been recently upheld by Hamilton (1988) p 445. Also see Bosworth (2004) p 553 citing Seneca’s Epistle Morales ad Lucillium 59.12 for more arguments.
113.See discussion of the sources and dates in Champlin (2003) pp 38-44.
114.Revisiting the comment by Wilkes (1972) p 178.
115.Syme (1987) pp 111-114 and discussed by Baynham (1998) p 201.
116.Quoting Baynham (1998) p 20 on ‘no one doubting’ Curtius used Livy. A full discussion of Livian influence can be found at pp 20-25, 35 and 75-76. Also see Oakley (2005) pp 661-662; and especially the introduction to Atkinson-Yardley (2009) and also well summarised by W Heckel in the introduction to the 2004 Penguin Books edition of Curtius and quoting Heckel on ‘modes of expression’. Fuller discussion of the similarities to Livy in Steele (1915) pp 402-409.
117.Arrian 2.7.5 for the effeminacy of the Asian troops the ‘most warlike’ of Europeans would face.
118.Livy 9.19.10 for the comparisons of the foes of each Alexander and Curtius 8.1.37 for its reiteration at Cleitus’ death.
119.As an example of Curtius taking phrases from Virgil see Curtius 4.6.25-29 and Alexander’s treatment of Baetis following the siege of Gaza which emulated Virgil’s treatment of Hector’s mutilated body.
120.Curtius 10.10.5-6. As far as Curtius’ own dismissal, and reiterating Chugg (2009) p 5 who refuted the use of the first personal singular in favour of the first person plural, in other translations ‘we’ is used; as an example the translation by JC Rolfe in 1946 published by the University of Michigan. Nevertheless it was not unusual for an author to use the plural ‘we’ when referring to his own efforts and this does not convincingly argue that Curtius paraphrased Cleitarchus, for example. Diodorus (for example 1.83.9) and Polybius, in particular, switched between singular and plural where emphasis demanded it and in particular to stress the veracity of either eyewitness reporting or personal vouching for facts; discussion in Marmodoro-Hill (2013) pp 199-204. Of course ‘we’ is still commonly used today, and by the author in this book.
121.See Suetonius Claudius 43-46, translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1914, and extract discussed in chapter titled Wills and Covenants in the Classical Mind. Britannicus had become the heir designate of Claudius under the name Tiberius Claudius Germanicus.
122.Milns (1966) p 502.
123.Following the observation in Bosworth (2004) p 551.
124.F Walter Studien zu Tacitus Und Curtius, H Kutzner, Munich 1887. For discussion of the similarities see Bosworth (2004).
125.Bosworth (1994) p 559 and for the mourning p 562.
126.Macaulay (1828).
127.Tarn (1948) pp 91-92, see McKechnie (1999) pp 44-46 on Tarn’s treatment of Curtius.
128.Tacitus 11.21, translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1937.
129.Tacitus 11.20 for Curtius’ mining activities and 11.21 for the summation; translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1937.
130.Following the title and theme of Bosworth (2004).
131.‘Insider and outsider’ quoting Champlin (2003) p 44.
132.Cassius Dio 66.1 for Vespasian’s alleged last words.
133.Suetonius Vespasian 6.3 for the July accession.
134.Suetonius Vespasian 1.
135.Milns (1966) p 491 for trepidare and quoting Bosworth (1983) p 151.
136.Suetonius Vespasian 8-9.
137.Cassius Dio Vespasian 59.12.3.
138.Suetonius Vespasian 18.
139.‘Oh dear’ is a Robert Graves translation from the Penguin edition of the Life of the Twelve Caesars-Vespasian 1957, of what is more traditionally worded ‘woe is me’.
140.Josephus’ comments in Against Apion 9 are a good example of Vespasian’s tolerance to historical works that painted him in a favourable light. For the siege at Jotapata see Josephus Jewish Wars 3.6 ff.
141.Josephus’ treatment in Rome discussed in Wiseman (1991) Introduction p ix.
142.See discussion on Vespasian’s censorship in Townend (1964) pp 340-341.
143.Suetonius Vespasian 15.
144.Milns (1966) p 493 for Tyre’s stance in the war.
145.Fears (1976) p 220.
146.Josephus Jewish War 3.3 ff.
147.See discussion in Heckel’s introduction to the Penguin edition of Quintus Curtius Rufus, The History of Alexander the Great, Penguin, London, 1984, pp 1-4.
148.References to Cluvius Rufus are found at Josephus 19.1.13, Suetonius Nero 21, Pliny the Younger Epistulae 9.19, Plutarch Otho 3, Tacitus 12.20 and 14.2, Tacitus Histories 1.8, 2.58, 2.65, 3.65, 4.39 and 4.43, Cassius Dio 68.14.
149.Josephus’ account and his sources are discussed in detail in Wiseman (1991) Introduction p XIV.
150.Proposed by Syme and discussed in Townend (1964) pp 337-377. Rejected by LH Feldman (editor) Josephus the Bible and History, EJ Brill, Leiden, 1988, p 404.
151.Suetonius is rumoured to have had an affair with Vibia Sabina who was married to Hadrian, according to the Historia Augusta 11.3. Suetonius was dismissed from office for it. This may be rumour and he may have simply been disrespectful, for we would have expected harsher treatment if true. The jus trium liberorum, literally ‘the right of three children’, were exemptions and privileges awarded to citizens who bore three children, ostensibly to repopulate the dwindling upper classes, but more invidiously to encourage procreation of a favourable gene pool. It later became a privilege of those considered meritous for good military of political deeds, regardless of offspring.
152.Tacitus Histories 1.76.1 for his support of Vitellius and 2.65.1 for the charges brought against him, 3.65 for Cluvius’ presence with Vitellius.
153.References to a ‘Marcus’ Cluvius Rufus appear unfounded and the sources mentioned a ‘Cluvius Rufus’ only. See Cornell (2013) p 550 footnote 3 citing a mistranslation of Tacitus Histories 2.65.1 from which the ‘Marcus’ stemmed. It is possibly because the translator had Marcus Caelius Rufus, protégé of Cicero, on his mind. His identity is discussed later in the chapter.
154.Suetonius Nero 21.1 and Tacitus Histories 1.8.1. See Wiseman (1991) p 111 for the nobilis discussion.
155.Suetonius Nero 21.1, Cassius Dio 62.14.3 for Cluvius’ ex-consulship. See below for ‘Cluitus’; Tacitus Histories 1.8 for his role in Hispania.
156.Full chronology discussion for dating Cluvius in Wiseman (1991) p 111. Pliny 33.
157.Josephus 19.1.13. Taken from Iliad 14.90-91.
158.Plutarch Roman Questions 107; Livy 7.2 recorded the same incident.
159.The disapproval – and its origins – is the opinion of Shorter (1967) pp 370-381.
160.Pliny the Younger Epistles 9.19.5, translation from Marchesi (2008) p 146.
161.As an example of the interpretations see the opinions of Levick (1985) pp 318-346.
162.Pliny Epistles 2.1.2, translation from Marchesi (2008) p 146 and quoting Marchesi on ‘double vocation of history’.
163.Discussed in Marchesi (2008) pp 145-146.
164.The origins of the Cluvii discussed in Wiseman (1991) p 111 and Cornell (2013) p 550 for the early Capua origins.
165.Tacitus Histories 1.52-54.
166.Tacitus Histories 2.65.1 for Cluvius’ oratorical skills.
167.Tacitus 1.1.
168.See Townend (1960) pp 98-100; the theme was picked up again in Townend (1964) p 342 for discussion on sources on the year 69 CE.
169.Townend (1964) p 346.
170.See Wiseman (1991) p 115 for discussion of Townend’s conclusions.
171.For Cluvius’ lenient treatment of Nero see Wilkes (1972) p 202. Cornell (2013) p 558 for ‘golden mean’.
172.Pliny 7.45 ff.
173.For a full discussion of Pliny’s use of Greek see Deane (1918) pp 41-44.
174.Discussed extensively in Teuffel-Schwabe (1892) and Sandy (1921) pp 824-826.
175.Suetonius Nero 21.
176.For Cluvius’ age see discussion in Wiseman (1991) p 111.
177.Suetonius Vespasian 4.4.
178.Tacitus 14.2; also discussed in Wiseman p 112.
179.For ‘food of the gods’ see Suetonius Nero 33. Pliny 7 reported that Agrippina used poisoned mushrooms on
Claudius; also Tacitus 12.66; Suetonius Claudius 44, Cassius Dio 61.34 for the account of his death. Josephus 20.8.1 was more ambivalent. Additionally Cassius Dio 61.35 and Suetonius Nero 33 claimed Nero knew of the murder, whilst Tacitus 12.65 and Josephus 20.8.1 mentioned Agrippina only and not Nero’s involvement.
180.Tacitus Histories 4.43.1, Pliny Epistles 2.11.17.
181.Tacitus Histories 4.39.4, following Cornell (2013) p 552.
182.Townend (1964) pp 111-113 and Wiseman (1991) p 111 for a list of fragments and anecdotes. The four fragments appear in Tacitus 13.20, 14.2, Plutarch Otho 3, Plutarch Roman Questions 107 and the anecdote in Pliny the Younger Letters 9, 19.5.
183.Quoting Champlin (2003) p 50.
184.Discussed and developed through Townend (1964) and Wiseman (1991) pp 114-115.
185.Compare Josephus 19.127-157 to Curtius’ coverage of Babylon at 10.5.7-15.
186.Confirmation that he wrote a history comes from Pliny Epistle 9.19.5.
187.Mommsen (1870) pp 320-322 republished in Gesammelte Schriften 7, Berlin, 1909, p 248. The extract is from Josephus 19.91-92.
188.Complete discussion of the arguments in Feldman (1996) pp 165-168. Feldman refutes the claim. Also disputed by Wardle (1992) pp 466-482.
189.The identity of a Canius Rufus is also discussed in Nauta-van Dam-Smolenars (2006) pp 315-328.
190.Excerpt from Martial Epigrams Book 3.20 On Canius, sections 1-4, Bohn’s Classical Library, 1897. The translation, modified by the author, comes from Champlin (2003) p 36.
191.See discussion in Williams (2004) p 60. For Caelius Rufus see Cicero De legibus 1.7. Cicero also mentioned a Q Curtius (though not Rufus) in his Epistulae ad Quintum fratrem, confirming his, and his brothers’ like of the man they were attempting to advance with a military tribuneship from Julius Caesar.
192.Sentiment captured in Cicero Epistulae ad Familiares 5.12.4-6; discussed in Dominik (1997) p 218.
193.See discussion in Adrados (2000) p 540.
194.Quintilian 10.1.102-105.
195.Syme (1964) pp 408-424.
196.The codex is also referred to as Laurentianus 68,II. Langobard, thus from the Lombards, is also known as Beneventan Script used from around the mid-8th century until the 13th century, although there are later examples. There were two major centres of Beneventan usage: the monastery on Monte Cassino and Bari.
