emperor是什么意思？_百度知道
emperor是什么意思？
我有更好的答案
可数名词皇帝初一英语九模块要学
皇帝、君主、最高领导人
n. 皇帝，君主
1、黄帝2、帝王｛国王｝3、君主4、王者
皇帝, 君主
其他类似问题
为您推荐：
您可能关注的推广
emperor的相关知识
等待您来回答
下载知道APP
随时随地咨询
出门在外也不愁An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors
Claudius (41-54 A.D.)
Garrett G. Fagan
Pennsylvania State University
Introduction
Ti. Claudius Nero Germanicus (b. 10 BC, d. 54 A.D.; emperor, 41-54 A.D.)
was the third emperor of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. His reign represents
a turning point in the history of the Principate for a number of reasons,
not the least for the manner of his accession and the implications it carried
for the nature of the office. During his reign he promoted administrators
who did not belong to the senatorial or equestrian classes, and was later
vilified by authors who did. He followed Caesar in carrying Roman arms
across the English Channel into Britain but, unlike his predecessor, he
initiated the full-scale annexation of Britain as a province, which remains
today the most closely studied corner of the Roman Empire. His relationships
with his wives and children provide detailed insights into the perennial
difficulties of the succession problem faced by all Roman Emperors. His
final settlement in this regard was not lucky: he adopted his fourth wife's
son, , who was to
reign catastrophically as
the dynasty to an end. Claudius's reign, therefore, was a mixture of successes
and failures that leads into the last phase of the Julio-Claudian line.
Early Life (10 BC - 41 A.D. )
Claudius was born on 1 August 10 BC at Lugdunum in Gaul, into the heart
of the Julio-Claudian dynasty: he was the son of Drusus Claudius Nero,
the son of
and Antonia, the daughter of Mark Antony.
His uncle, , went on to become
emperor in AD 14 and his brother Germanicus was marked out for succession
to the purple when, in AD 4, he was adopted by .
It might be expected that Claudius, as a well-connected imperial prince,
would have enjoyed the active public life customary for young men of his
standing but this was not the case. In an age that despised weakness, Claudius
was unfortunate enough to have been born with defects. He limped, he drooled,
he stuttered and was constantly ill.
His family members mistook these physical debilities as reflective of mental
infirmity and generally kept him out of the public eye as an embarrassment.
A sign of this familial disdain is that he remained under guardianship,
like a woman, even after he had reached the age of majority. Suetonius,
in particular, preserves comments of Antonia, his mother, and ,
his grandmother, which are particularly cruel in their assessment of the
boy. From the same source, however, it emerges that
suspected that there was more to this "idiot" than met the eye.
Nevertheless, Claudius spent his entire childhood and youth in almost complete
seclusion. The normal rites de passage of an imperial prince came
and went without official notice, and Claudius received no summons to public
office or orders to command troops on the frontiers.
When he assumed the toga virilis, for instance, he was carried to
the Capitol
the normal procedure was to be led into
the Forum by one's father or guardian in full public view. How he spent
the voluminous free time of his youth is revealed by his later character:
he read voraciously. He became a scholar of considerable ability and composed
works on all subjects in the liberal arts, he was the
last person we know of who could read Etruscan.
These skills, and the knowledge of governmental institutions he acquired
from studying history, were to stand him in good stead when he came to
It should not be forgotten that Claudius's wing of the family suffered
terribly in the internal struggles for succession that racked the imperial
house. His father died on campaign when Claudius was only one year old,
and his beloved brother, Germanicus, succumbed under suspicious circumstances
in AD 19. His only other sibling to reach adulthood, Livilla, became involved
with Sejanus and paid the ultimate price in the wake of the latter's fall
from grace in AD 31. Through all this turmoil Claudius survived, primarily
through being ignored as an embarrassment and an idiot.
Claudius's fortunes changed somewhat when his unstable nephew,
(Caligula), came to power in the spring of 37 A.D. ,
it seems, liked to use his bookish, frail uncle as the butt of cruel jokes
and, in keeping with this pattern of behavior, promoted him to a suffect
consulship on 1 July 37 A.D. At 46 years of age, it was Claudius's first
public office. Despite this sortie into public life, he seemed destined
for a relatively quiet and secluded dotage when, in January 41, events
overtook him.
Accession (24-25 January, 41 A.D.)
Arguably the most important period of Claudius's reign was its first few
hours. The events surrounding his accession are worthy of detailed description,
since they revealed much about the true nature of the Augustan Principate.
In the early afternoon of 24 January 41 A.D., the emperor
was attending a display of dancers in a theater near the palace. Claudius
was present. Shortly before lunch time, Claudius took his leave and the
emperor decided that he, too, would adjourn for a bath. As
was making his way down an isolated palace corridor he was surrounded and
cut down by discontented members of his own bodyguard. In the aftermath
of the assassination -- the first open murder of a Roman emperor -- there
was widespread panic and confusion. The German elements of the emperor's
bodyguard, who were fiercely loyal to their chief, went on the rampage
and killed indiscriminately. Soldiers of the larger Praetorian Guard began
looting the imperial palace. According to the best-known tradition, some
Guardsmen found Claudius cowering behind a curtain and, on the spot, they
declared him their emperor and carried him off to their camp. In this story,
a hapless Claudius falls into power entirely as a result of accident, and
very much against his will. It is not hard to see why, with its implicit
theme of recusatio imperii, it is the story of his accession that
Claudius himself favored. Vestiges, however,
can be traced of another tradition that paints a somewhat different picture.
In this version, the Guardsmen meet in their camp and discuss the situation
facing them in light of
Their pleasant, city-based terms of military service were in jeopardy.
They needed an emperor. Fixing their intentions on Claudius as the only
surviving mature member of the Julio-Claudian house, they sent out a party
of troops to find him and bring him back to their camp so he could be acclaimed
emperor, which is what happened. In this story, the elevation of Claudius
to the purple was a purposeful plan on the part of the soldiers, even if
Claudius remains a passive and reluctant partner in the whole process.
The possibility has to be entertained that Claudius was a far more active
participant in his own elevation than either of these traditions let on.
There is just reason to suspect that he may even have been involved in
planning the murder of
-- his departure
from the theater minutes before the assassination appears altogether too
fortuitous. These possibilities, however, must remain pure speculation,
since the ancient evidence offers nothing explicit in the way of support
for them. On the other hand, we can hardly expect them to, given the later
pattern of events. The whole issue of Claudius's possible involvement in
the death of
and his own subsequent
acclamation by the Praetorian Guard must, therefore, remain moot.
Despite the circumstances that brought him there, the hours following
Claudius's arrival at the Praetorian Camp and his acceptance as emperor
by the Senate are vital ones for the history of the Principate. Events
could have taken a very different course, but that they worked out as they
did speaks volumes as to how far seven decades of the Augustan Principate
had removed Rome from the possibility of a return to the so-called free
death prompted a meeting
of the Senate. Initially, there was talk of declaring the Republic restored
and dispensing with emperors altogether. Then, however, various senators
began proposing that they be chosen as the next princeps. Debate
was in progress when news reached the senators that the Guard had made
the decision for them: Claudius, the soldiers' choice, was sitting in the
Praetorian Camp. The main historical
difficulty in what happened next is due to confusion in Josephus's account
(which is the fullest). In one version, the Senate sent two tribunes to
the Camp to demand that Claudius step down. Once in the Camp, however,
the tribunes were cowed by the ardent support for Claudius among the soldiers
and instead requested that he come to the Senate to be ratified as emperor.
In Josephus's alternate version, however, Herod Agrippa is summoned by
the senators and employed as an envoy between the Camp and the Senate.
Clearly, Josephus is conveying two traditions about these events, one Roman
(featuring the tribunes), the other Jewish (highlighting the role of Herod
Agrippa). Suetonius, naturally enough, follows the Roman tradition, as
does Dio interestingly, the latter shows awareness
of some participation on the part of Herod Agrippa in a later passage.
Regardless of how the negotiations were conducted, the Senate quickly
realized it was powerless in the presence of several thousand armed men
supporting Claudius's candidacy. The impotence that the esteemed council
had experienced time and again when dealing with the military dynasts of
the Late Republic was once more revealed to all, and the meeting dissolved
with the fate of the Empire left undecided. When the Senate met again later
that night in the Temple of Jupiter Victor, it found its numbers much depleted,
since many had fled the city to their country estates. The senators assessed
their military strength: they had three or four urban cohorts under the
command of the City Prefect, numbering perhaps 3,000 men. With these, they
occupied the Forum and Palatine. Plans were laid to arm some ex-slaves
to provide reinforcements. By these actions the senators were accepting
that supreme power in post-Augustan Rome could be achieved only by military
all questions of legal niceties were irrelevant. But the Senate
could not control their troops -- they all deserted to the Praetorian Guard,
with whom they shared the Camp.
Now completely powerless, the senators hurried off to the Praetorian
Camp to pay their respects to Claudius. On 25 January 41 A.D. Claudius
was formally invested with all the powers of the princeps, becoming
Ti. Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus. (Since Claudius had no legal claim
to it whatsoever, the appearance of "Caesar" in his imperial name marks
the first step in this word's transmutation from a family name to a title
denoting ruler, and so begins a tradition that stretches into the modern
era with "Kaiser," "Czar," and possibly "Shah.")
These events have been treated in some detail because of their immense
historical importance.
was the first
emperor of Rome to be openly murdered, and Claudius's accession marks the
first overt and large-scale intrusion of the military into post-Augustan
politics. The basic fact of the Principate, which had always been implicit
in the Augustan settlement but heretofore carefully disguised, was now
made plain: the emperor's position ultimately rested not on consensus but
on the swords of the soldiers who paid him homage. From one perspective,
the Principate had been revealed for what it truly was -- an exercise in
managing the military's loyalties, and not a form of government rooted
in law and consensus. The Senate, in attempting to block Claudius with
troops of their own, had acquiesced in this structure of power. For ever
afterward, emperors sat on the throne on the sufferance of the troops they
commanded, and a loss of army loyalty necessarily entailed a loss of power,
usually accompanied by the loss of the incumbent's life. But the harder
lessons in these realiti for the moment order had
been restored, and Claudius embarked on his reign in relative security.
The Early Years: Britain, Freedmen, and Messalina (AD 41 - 48)
Among Claudius's first acts was the apprehension and execution of
assassins. Whatever his opinion of their actions, politics and pietas
required that Claudius not be seen to condone men who murdered an emperor
and a member of his own family. He
also displayed immediate understanding of the centrality of the military
to his position and sought to create a military image for himself that
his prior sheltered existence had denied him. Preparations got under way
soon after his accession for a major military expedition into Britain,
perhaps sparked by an attempted revolt of the governor of Dalmatia, L.
Arruntius Camillus Scribonianus, in 42 A.D.. The invasion itself, spearheaded
by four legions, commenced in the summer of 43 and was to last for decades,
ultimately falling short of the annexation of the whole island (if indeed
that was Claudius's final objective at the outset). This move marked the
first major addition to the territory of the Roman empire since the reign
Claudius himself took part in the campaign, arriving in the war zone with
an entourage of ex-consuls in the late summer of 43 A.D. After a parade
at Camulodunum (Colchester) to impress the natives, he returned to Rome
to celebrate a triumph in 44 A.D. His military credentials had been firmly
established.
The sources are united in portraying Claudius as a dupe to his imperial
freedmen advisors as well as to his wives. It is possible that the hostile
stance of the elite toward Claudius extended back into his reign -- he
was, after all, a usurper who had been foisted on the aristocrats by the
soldiers. If so, Claudius's reliance on his freedmen may have stemmed from
this circumstance, in that the ex-slaves were (as far as he was concerned)
more trustworthy than the sullen aristocracy. For whatever reasons, there
is no doubt that Claudius's reign is the first era of the great imperial
freedman. To be sure, the secretariat had existed before Claudius and members
of it had achieved some prominence (notably Helicon and Callistus under
but the rise of powerful individuals like Narcissus, Polybius, and Pallas
was a distinctive mark of Claudius's reign. The power of these men was
demonstrated early on when the emperor chose Narcissus as his envoy to
the legions as they hesitated to embark on their invasion of Britain.
According to our sources, the freedmen were frequently to exert less beneficent
influences throughout Claudius's reign.
In 38 A.D. Claudius had married ,
a scion of a noble house with impressive familial connections.
bore him a daughter (, born in
39) and a son (, born in 41):
she was therefore the mother of the heir-apparent and enjoyed influence
for that reason. In the sources,
is portrayed as little more than a pouting adolescent nymphomaniac who
holds wild parties and arranges the deaths of former lovers or those who
and all this while her cuckolded husband blunders on
in blissful ignorance. Recently, attempts have been made to rehabilitate
as an astute player of court politics who used sex as a weapon, but in
the end we have little way of knowing the truth.
What we can say is that either her love of parties (on the adolescent model)
or her byzantine scheming (on the able courtier model) brought her down.
While Claudius was away in Ostia in AD 48,
had a party in the palace in the course of which a marriage ceremony was
performed (or playacted) between herself and a consul-designate, C. Silius.
Whatever the intentions behind it, the political ramifications of this
folly were sufficiently grave to cause the summary execution of Messalina,
Silius, and assorted hangers-on (orchestrated, tellingly, by the freedman
Narcissus). Claudius was now without
The Rise of Agrippina and Claudius's Death (48-54 A.D.)
In our sources, the death of
is presented as initiating a scramble among the freedmen, each wishing
to place his preferred candidate at Claudius's side as the new empress.
In the end, it was Pallas who prevailed when he convinced Claudius to marry
. The marriage took place within months of
execution.
was a colorful figure
with extensive and far-reaching imperial connections: she was the daughter
of Claudius's brother, ,
and a sister of
she had been exiled for involvement in the conspiracy of G moreover,
she had been married before. She therefore brought to the marriage with
Claudius -- which necessitated a change in the law to allow uncles to marry
their brothers' daughters -- a son, .
ambitions for this son proved the undoing of Claudius.
The years between his marriage to
in 48 and his death in 54 were difficult ones for Claudius. Whether or
not sources are right to portray him as a dupe of his wives and freedmen
throughout his reign, there can be little doubt that
powerful personality dominated Claudius's last years. Her position, openly
influential in a manner unlike any previous empress, was recognized by
those attuned to imperial politics, and she appears more and more prominently
in official inscriptions and coins. In 50 the Senate voted her the title
"Augusta," the first prominent imperial woman to hold this title since
-- and the latter had only held it after
death. She greeted foreign embassies to the emperor at Rome from her own
tribunal, and those greetings were recorded i she
also wore a gold-embroidered military cloak at official functions. It is
a sign of her overt influence that a new colony on the Rhine bore her name.
powerful position facilitated the advancement of her son
and was, in turn, strengthened by it. Claudius already had a natural son,
who was still a minor. , at 13, was
three years older. Now Claudius began to advance
through various signs of favor, the most important being his adoption as
Claudius's son on 25 February AD 50. Henceforth
was known as Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus Caesar and known to posterity
simply as "Nero". But Claudius openly advanced
in other ways, too: the emperor held the consulship in 51, which was the
took the "toga of manhood," and
that event was itself staged several months before the customary age for
was granted imperium
proconsulare outside the city, addressed the Senate, appeared with
Claudius at circus games (while Britannicus appeared still in the toga
of a minor), and was hailed as "Leader of the Youth" (princeps iuventutis)
in AD 53 Nero married Claudius's daughter, .
All of these are sure signs of preference in the ever-unstable imperial
succession schemes. The main difficulty for modern scholars lies in how
to explain Claudius's favoring of
his natural son, ; the reasons
remain a matter of intense debate.
No matter what the reasons were, there can be little doubt that ,
despite his tender age, had been clearly marked out as Claudius's successor.
according to Tacitus, now decided it was time to dispose of Claudius to
to take over. The ancient accounts
are confused -- as is habitual in the cases of hidden and dubious deaths
of emperors -- but their general drift is that Claudius was poisoned with
a treated mushroom, that he lingered a while and had to be poisoned a second
time before dying on 13 October 54 A.D. At noon that same day, the sixteen-year-old
was acclaimed emperor in a carefully orchestrated piece of political theater.
Already familiar to the army and the public, he faced no serious challenges
to his authority.
Claudius and the Empire
The invasion and annexation of Britain was by far the most important and
significant event in Claudius's reign. But several other issues deserve
attention: his relationship with and treatment of the aristocracy, his
management of the provinces and their inhabitants, and his judicial practices,
and his building activities. Before looking at these subjects, however,
we should note that the long-lived notion that Claudius initiated a coherent
policy of centralization in the Roman Empire -- evidenced in the centralization
of provincial administration and judicial actions, in the creation of a
departmental bureaucracy, his interference in financial affairs, and so
on -- has been decisively disproven by a recent biography of Claudius.
Whatever actions Claudius took in regard to the various wings of government,
he did so without any unifying policy of centralization in mind.
Claudius's relationship with the Senate did not get off to a good start
-- given the nature of his succession and the early revolt of Scribonianus
with its ensuing show trials -- and it seems likely that distrust of the
aristocracy is what impelled Claudius to elevate the role of his freedmen.
During his reign, however, Claudius made efforts to conciliate Rome's leading
council, but he also embarked on practices that redounded to his detriment,
especially those of sponsoring the entrance men considered unworthy into
the Order and hearing delicate cases behind closed doors (in camera).
In the last analysis, the figures speak for themselves: 35 senators and
several hundred Knights were driven to suicide or executed during the reign.
The posthumous vilification of Claudius in the aristocratic tradition also
bespeaks a deep bitterness and indicates that, ultimately, Claudius's relationship
with the Senate showed little improvement over time. His reviving and holding
the censorship in 47-48 is typical of the way the relationship between
Senate and emperor misfired: Claudius, no doubt, thought he was adhering
to ancient tradition, but the emperor-censor only succeeded in eliciting
odium from those he was assessing.
Claudius was remembered (negatively) by tradition as being noticeably
profligate in dispensing grants of Roman citize he
also admitted "long-haired" Gauls into the senatorial order, to the displeasure
of the snobbish incumbents. Both of these practices demonstrate his concern
for fair play and good government for the provinces, despite his largely
sedentary reign: under Claudius are attributed the first issues of standing
orders (mandata) from emperor to governor.
In the organization of the provinces, Claudius appears to have preferred
direct administration over client kingship. Under him the kingdoms of Mauretania,
Lycia, Noricum, and Thrace were converted into provinces. Stable kingdoms,
such as Bosporus and Cilicia, were left untouched. A good example of the
pattern is Herod Agrippa I. This client prince had grown up at Rome and
had been awarded tetrarchic lands in Galilee by . As we saw above, he had been involved in the accession
of Claudius and, as a reward for services rendered, he was granted Judaea
and Samaria in addition to his former holdings. He fell from grace, however,
when he suspiciously extended Jerusalem's walls and invited other eastern
kings to a conference at Tiberias. He died suddenly in 44 A.D., after which
his former kingdom again came under direct Roman rule.
One feature of Claudius's reign that the sources particularly criticize
is his handling of judicial matters. While he was certainly diligent in
attending to hearings and court proceedings -- he was constantly present
in court and heard cases even during family celebrations and festal days
-- the sources accuse him of interfering unduly with cases, of not listening
to both sides of a case, of making ridiculous and/or savage rulings, and
of hearing delicate cases in closed-door private sessions with only his
advisors present. The most celebrated and infamous of the latter cases
is that of Valerius Asiaticus, the Gallic ex-consul and one-time friend
of Claudius, who fell from grace in 47, reputedly at instigation.
His case was heard in the emperor's bedroom and Asiaticus was forced to
suicide. Even if a survey of surviving rulings by Claudius do not show
him making silly decisions, his judicial practices caught such attention
that Seneca's Apocolocyntosis ends with a courtroom scene with Claudius
as the accused: he is not allowed to make his defence, is convicted, and
condemned to be a powerless courtroom clerk. Such an image must have been
most pleasing to the senatorial imagination.
Finally, there is Claudius's building activities. Public building was
de rigueur for Roman emperors, and ancient accounts of individual reigns
routinely include mention of imperial munificence. Matters hydraulic account
for Claudius's greatest constructional achievements, in the form of a new
aqueduct for the city of Rome, a new port at Portus near Ostia, and the
draining of the Fucine Lake. The sources are at pains to highlight the
almost catastrophic outcome of the latter project, but its scale cannot
be denied. Suetonius's assessment that "his public works were grandiose
and necessary rather than numerous" is entirely correct.
Conclusion
Robert Graves' fictional characterization of Claudius as an essentially
benign man with a keen intelligence has tended to dominate the wider public's
view of this emperor. Close study of the sources, however, reveals a somewhat
different kind of man. In addition to his scholarly and cautious nature,
he had a cruel streak, as suggested by his addiction to gladiatorial games
and his fondness for watching his defeated opponents executed.
He conducted closed-door (in camera ) trials of leading citizens
that frequently resulted in their ruin or deaths -- an unprecedented and
tyrannical pattern of behavior. He had his wife
executed, and he personally presided over a kangaroo court in the Praetorian
Camp in which many of her hangers-on lost their lives. He abandoned his
to his fate and favored
the advancement of
as his successor.
While he cannot be blamed for the disastrous way
rule turned out, he must take some responsibility for putting that most
unsuitable youth on the throne. At the same time, his reign was marked
by some notable successes: the invasion of Britain, stability and good
government in the provinces, and successful management of client kingdoms.
Claudius, then, is a more enigmatic figure than the other Julio-Claudian
emperors: at once careful, intelligent, aware and respectful of tradition,
but given to bouts of rage and cruelty, willing to sacrifice precedent
to expediency, and utterly ruthless in his treatment of those who crossed
suspicion that there was
more to the timid Claudius than met the eye was more than fully borne out
by the events of his unexpected reign.
BIBLIOGRAPHY (see also the bibliographies for Gaius and Nero)
Barrett, A. A. Agrippina: Sex, Power, and Politics in the Early Empire.
New Haven, 1996.
Braund, D. Augustus to Nero: A Sourcebook on Roman History, 31 BC
- A.D. 68. London, 1985.
Eck, W., A. Caballos, and F. Fern&ndez. Das Senatusconsultum
de Cn. Pisone Patre. Munich, 1996.
Ehrhardt, C. "Messalina and the Succession to Claudius." Antichthon
12 (1978): 51-77.
Sherk, R. K. The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian. Cambridge,
Levick, B. Claudius. New Haven, 1990.
Momigliano, A. Claudius: The Emperor and his Achievement.2
Oxford, 1961.
Schwartz, D. R. Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea. T&bingen,
Scramuzza, V. M. The Emperor Claudius. London, 1940.
Sherwin-White, A. N. The Roman Citizenship2. Oxford,
Smallwood, E. M. Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius,
Claudius, and Nero. Cambridge, 1967.
Strocka, V.M. (ed.) Die Regierungszeit des Claudius. Mainz 1993.
Sutherland, C. H. V. Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy. London,
________. The Roman Imperial Coinage. Vol. 1,2 London,
1982. (= RIC)
Talbert, R. J. A. The Senate of Imperial Rome. Princeton, 1984.
Vivo, A. de. Claudio e Tacito: Storia e codificazione letteraria.
Naples, 1980.
Wellesley, K. "Can You Trust Tacitus?" GaR 1 (1954): 13-33.
Wiseman, T.P. Flavius Josephus: Death of an Emperor. Exeter 1991.
[[1]] The main ancient literary sources for Claudius's
reign are: Tac. Ann. 11-12; Dio 59.1-60(61).4; Seneca, Apocolocyntosis;
Suet. Claudius. Supplementary information is found in Josephus,
and inscriptions and coins are collected in Smallwood, Documents
(many of the latter's entries are translated in Braund or Sherk). Birth:
Suet. Claud. 2.1.
[[2]] Defects: Suet. Claud. 2.1-2. Claudius
may have suffered from cerebral palsy, but medical diagnoses in the absence
of physical remains and at a distance of 2,000 years are not the soundest.
[[3]] Antonia, reports Suetonius [Claud.
3.2], used to call him "a half-formed monster" and berated fools as "more
stupid than my son Claudius." These assessments may well derive from the
imperial archives, to which Suetonius had access. For citations from Augustus's
correspondence that reveal a more balanced view of the young Claudius,
see Suet. Claud. 4. Recent confirmation of Claudius's low status
in the dynasty comes from the SC de Cn. Pisone Patre (AD 20): in
the lengthy praises of members of Germanicus's family, Claudius, Germanicus's
brother, is barely mentioned (line 148) ; see W. Eck et al., Das
Senatusconsultum de Cn. Pisone Patre (Munich, 1996), ll. 136-50.
[[4]] He did hold an augural priesthood, but nothing
else. The flimsiness of Augustus's bequest to him, in naming him an heir
in the third degree among complete strangers, is a further indication of
his almost total marginalization from the center of the dynasty, see Suet.
[[5]] Suet. Claud. 3.1, 41-42. Among his
works, which were composed in Greek and Latin and none of which survive,
were: 43 books of Roman history, 21 books of Etruscan history, and 8 on
C a rhetorical defence of C and
an autobiography in 8 books. The latter have been fictionalized by Robert
Graves in his masterly novels "I, Claudius" and "Claudius the God."
[[6]] Suetonius (Claud.5-6) records various
incidental honors and respects paid to him from various quarters, such
as his representation on two occasions of the equestrian order as their
patron. However, as he was an under-utilized and therefore accessible member
of the imperial house, it would have been more surprising had some party
not attempted to use him as an avenue of approach into more powerful inner
[[7]] Consulship and rough treatment under Gaius:
Suet. Claud. 7-9.
[[8]] Suet. Claud. 10; Dio 60.1.2-3a. Josephus
(AJ 19.212-20) is largely in agreement, but unwittingly contradicts
an earlier passage in his work (see next note). Another possibility (see
Scramuzza, 56-57) is that Josephus in AJ 19.212-20 is portraying
the sequel of the events he describes in AJ 10.162-65.
[[9]] The tradition of the "active Guard" is preserved
in Jos. AJ 19.162-65.
[[10]] The danger here is that we enter a pattern
of circular reasoning: because Claudius was involved in the assassination
and his own accession, he suppressed the evidence and put out the "hapless
accession" therefore, the absence of evidence for his active involvement
is to be read as proof of it! Levick (29-39) skirts this sort of logic,
but falls short of endorsing it.
[[11]] Suet. Claud. 10.1-3; Dio 60.1.3a;
Jos. AJ 19.229, BJ 2.206-7.
[[12]] Tribunes: Jos. AJ 19.229-35; Herod
Agrippa: Jos. AJ 19.239-45.
[[13]] Suet. Claud. 10.3; Dio 60.1.4 (tribunes),
60.8.2 (allusion to Herod Agrippa's role). Josephus's account of these
Roman events, in fact, is part of an extended, self-contained subdivision
of his AJ that could easily be entitled "The Adventures of Herod
Agrippa Among the Romans." There is just cause to doubt the degree of prominence
he affords Herod in these events, but that the Jewish prince played some
role is hardly to be doubted.
[[14]] Depleted Senate: Jos. AJ 19.248-49.
Senatorial military strength and actions: Suet. Claud. 10.4; Jos.
19.188, 242, BJ 2.205. Desertions: Dio 60.1.4; Jos. AJ 19.259-60,
2.211-12. The most likely reason for the sudden desertion of the Senate's
troops late on 24 January was not fear of a restored Republic or an unwillingness
to fight their comrades (as Josephus claims in the
AJ and BJ,
citt., respectively), but the announcement on the evening of that day
of Claudius's huge donative to the urban and provincial troops (Jos. AJ
19.247, Suet. Claud. loc. cit.).
[[15]] Suet. Claud. 11.1; Dio 60.3.4; Jos.
19.268-71. Chaerea had virtually ensured his own death by insisting that
Claudius be killed along with Gaius.
[[16]] Scribonianus's rebellion: Suet. Claud.
13.2; Dio 60.15-16; Tac. Hist. 1.89, 2.75, Ann. 12.52.2.
The invasion of Britain has been analyzed in minute detail by many British
scholars: e.g., S. Frere, Britannia,3 (London,
1987), 16-80; J. Peddie, Invasion: The Roman Conquest of Britain
(New York, 1987); P. Salway, Roman Britain (Oxford, 1981), 65-99;
G. Webster and D. Dudley, The Roman Conquest of Britain,2
(London, 1973). Claudius's initial objective may have been the annexation
of the sou see Levick, 137-48.
[[17]] The bombastic inscription from his (lost)
triumphal arch, now in a courtyard of the Musei Capitolini in Rome, declares
that "he received the surrender of eleven British kings who had been defeated
without loss in battle, and was the first to bring barbarian peoples from
across the Ocean under the sway of the Roman people" (CIL 6.920
= ILS 216). There were other military actions. Claudius inherited
a war in Mauretania from Gaius's reign and, once fighting subsided, organized
the former kingdom into two provinces (Mauretania Tingitana and Caesariensis)
perhaps as early as AD 43; he subdued trouble in Lycia and annexed the
region as a province, probably around AD 47 or 48; and he saw fighting
along the Rhine and D for all this, see Levick, 149-61.
By the end of his reign, he had been hailed as imperator twenty-seven times
(see, e.g., CIL 6.1256 = ILS 218), more than any emperor
until Constantine the Great.
[[18]] On the imperial freedmen, see Levick, 53-79;
Scramuzza, 5-34. Claudius's relations with the aristocracy: Levick, 93-103.
Narcissus and the legions: Dio 60.19.2-3. A classic example of the growing
power of the freedmen is Claudius's abolition of the senatorial post of
Ostiensis and its replacement with a freedman procurator portus
Ostiensis in 44; see Suet. Claud. 24.2.
[[19]] Messalina was Claudius's third wife: previous
unions with Plautia Urgulanilla and Aelia Paetina had failed for various
see Suet. Claud. 26.1-2. Messalina's influence is indicated
by her appearance on the obverse of coins of Claudius's reign (where one
would expect the head of the emperor), or in the cameo now in Paris depicting
Messalina, , and Britannicus. Messalina's
excesses are reflected in such sources as Sen. Apoc., passim
and Juv. Sat. 6 and 10.
[[20]] Messalina's fall: Tac. Ann. 11.26-37;
Suet. Claud. 26; Dio 60(61).31.1-5; Sen. Oct. 257-61.
[[21]] Timing of marriage: Tac. Ann. 12.6-8.
Agrippina's life and connections: Barrett, Agrippina, 1-94 (before
marriage to Claudius).
[[22]] Augusta: Dio 60(61).33.2a. Greeting ambassadors:
Tac. Ann. 12.37.5; Dio 60(61).33.7. Cloak: Pliny HN 33.63,
Dio 60(61).33.3. Colony: Tac. Ann. 12.27.1-2. Tacitus, typically,
contrives the most biting aphorism to describe Agrippina's ascendancy:
"she presided over an almost masculine servitude" (adductum et quasi
virile servitium -- Ann. 12.7.5).
[[23]] Adoption: Tac. Ann. 12.25; Suet.
27, Nero 7; Dio 60(61).32.22. Toga virilis and public appearances:
Tac. Ann. 12.41-42; Suet. Nero 7; Dio 60(61).32.5, 33.2c,
33.9. Imperium proconsulare: Tac. Ann. 12.41.2. Princeps
Iuventutis: C.H.V. Sutherland, Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy
(London, 1951), pp.143-44 and id., RIC 126 (nos. 75. 80,
82) (many of these coins also celebrate Agrippina independently of Claudius
-- e.g., Sutherland, Coinage, 146 and id.,
125 [no. 75] -- a sure sign of her overt influence). Marriage to :
Tac. Ann. 12.58.1; Dio 60(61).33.11.
[[24]] Tacitus is unequivocal in attributing Nero's
advancement to Agrippina's efforts (studiis matris at Ann.
12.9.2). Modern attempts to counter this judgment (e.g., Scramuzza,
91-92) are unconvincing, though Barrett's (Agrippina, 95-142) portrayal
of Agrippina and Claudius acting in concert has its attractions. Tacitus
portrays Pallas, Agrippina's ally, as persuading Claudius to advance Nero
for reasons of state, slyly appealing to the sort of historical precedents
he knew would appeal to Claudius's antiquarian sensibilities (Tac. Ann.
12.25). It is noteworthy that in his epigraphically preserved speech to
Lugdunum (dated to AD 48, and thus before Nero was a factor), Claudius
had referred to just such precedents regarding monarchic succession (Smallwood,
Documents,
no. 369.8-27). Levick (69-79) argues for the "pairing" of Britannicus and
Nero in a joint-succession scheme she sees extending back to Augustus.
However, her "dynastic collegiality" format for the imperial succession
is rather thin for evidence and, tellingly, was not realized even once
when power changed hands in the first century AD. Barrett (Agrippina,
cit.) argues that Claudius intended to promote Nero from the outset,
since the prince could claim direct descent from Augustus and that this
claim buttressed his own regime. This position seems a little stretched,
since Claudius must have known that to do so would result in Britannicus's
death (as indeed it did, within weeks of Nero' see Tac. Ann.
13.15-17). Another possibility, little more than mentioned in the modern
authorities but entirely possible, is that Claudius saw some flaws in Britannicus
that turned him toward Nero (Tac. Ann. 13.16.5).
[[25]] Death of Claudius: Tac. Ann. 12.64-67;
Suet. Claud. 43-44; Dio 60(61).34.1-3. Scramuzza (92-93) believes
that Claudius died naturally, and Barrett (Agrippina, 139-42) leans
in the same direction, on the basis that the confused and conflicting accounts
of our sources make murder unlikely. Levick (76-77), while stating that
murder cannot be proven, nonetheless finds Claudius's death altogether
too timely to have been natural. The aging emperor had fallen ill frequently
in the years leading up to his death, but the fortuitous timing of his
death is indeed highly suspicious.
[[26]] Proponents of centralization: e.g., Momigliano,
H.H. Scullard, From the Gracchi to Nero5 (London, 1985),
292-95. Disproven: Levick, 81-91.
[[27]] Consulting the House: Claudius's record
of attendance at meetings of the Senate is among b
see R.J.A. Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome (Princeton, 1984),
174-84, esp. 176-77. Conciliatory gestures: he declared amnesty for senators
implicated in Gaius's death (Dio 60.3.5-4.2); he adopted a general demeanor
of deference to the House (Suet. Claud. 12.1-2, 35.1); he rose to
greet consuls and dressed unassumingly for meetings (Dio 60.6.1, 9); and
so on. Unworthy senators: e.g., Tac. Ann. 11.20.4-21.4. Numbers
of dead: Sen., Apoc. 14.1 (who numbers 35 senators and 221 equites);
Suet. Claud. 29.2 (35 senators and over 300 equites). Censorship:
Tac. Ann. 11.13, Suet. Claud. 16.
[[28]] Excessive grants of citizenship: Sen. Apoc.
3.3; his grant of citizenship en masse to the Alpine tribe of the
Anauni (CIL 14.85 = ILS 206) is a particularly famous example.
Levick (165) has pointed out, however, that in the indices of provincial
citizens "Claudii" are far outweighed by "Iulii" or "Flavii," suggesting
that the tradition has exaggerated this tendency of Claudius's; see also
see A.N. Sherwin-White The Roman Citizenship2 (Oxford,
1973), 237-50. Admission of Gauls to the senate: Tac. Ann. 11.23-25;
Smallwood, Documents, no. 369 (see also K. Wellesley, "Can You Trust
Tacitus?", GaR 1[1954]: 13-33). Mandata: Levick, 164.
[[29]] Career of Herod Agrippa I: D.R. Schwartz,
I: The Last King of Judaea (T&bingen, 1990); above, nn. 12-13.
[[30]] Hearing cases: Suet. Claud. 14,
Dio 60.4.3, 17.1. Suetonius (Claud. 14-15) sums up his judicial
failing see also Dio 60.5.6-7. Closed hearings: Tac.
11.2.1, 13.4.2. Valerius Asiaticus and survey of rulings: Levick, 61-63
(with sources in notes) and 123-26, respectively. Seneca: Apoc.
12-14 (where there are many echoes of Suetonius's charges).
[[31]] Suet. Claud. 20 (quote at 20.1:
opera magna potius et necessaria quam multa perfecit). See also F.C.
Bourne, The Public Works of the Julio-Claudians and Flavians (Princeton,
1946), 42-48; Levick, 108-11.
[[32]] Cruelty: Suet. Claud. 34.
Copyright 1998, Garrett G. Fagan. This file may be copied
on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this
copyright notice, remain intact.
Comments to:
Updated:30 April 2004
For more detailed geographical information, please use the DIR/ORBAntique
and Medieval Atlas below. Click on the appropriate part of the map below
to access large area maps.}