-
http://www.jstor.org
The 'Quinquennium Neronis' and the StoicsAuthor(s): Oswyn
MurraySource: Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte, Vol. 14,
No. 1, (Jan., 1965), pp. 41-61Published by: Franz Steiner
VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4434867Accessed:
20/08/2008 06:11
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of
JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available
athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's
Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have
obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of
a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this
work. Publisher contact information may be obtained
athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the
same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of
such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build
trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly
community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon,
and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery
and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR,
please contact [email protected].
-
THE 'QUIN QUENNIUM NERONIS' AND THE STOICS i. 'Augenda urbe
maxime' and 'tolerabilis'.
In an article on the 'quinquennium Neronis' recently published
in the Jour- nal of Roman Studies,' F. A. Lepper has investigated
the relation between Aurelius Victor's Liber de Caesaribus and the
anonymous Epitome de Caesaribus. In general, for the first eleven
chapters of each, he has shown good reason to suppose that a common
source lies behind both works, and that, because of Victor's
concern for style and moralising approach, the Epitomator is often
a better guide to the facts and their order as they appeared in the
'Common Source'.2
Such general considerations are notoriously difficult to apply
to a particular passage; but perhaps less so, when the author most
to be suspected on general grounds contains mistakes of fact and an
internal inconsistency. In Chapter Five of their works both Victor
and the Epitomator contain an alleged remark of Trajan giving high
praise to a 'Neronis quinquennium' :3 'procul distare cunctos
principes Neronis quinquennio'.4 Both date this quinquennium to the
first five years of Nero's reign. Victor justifies 'Trajan's'5
remark by a gen- eralisation, 'quinquennium tamen tantus fuit,
augenda urbe maxime', and two examples of new provinces; yet
neither province was annexed before 63, and Nero's building
activities in his first five years were not remarkable. The Epit-
omator lists after 'Trajan's' remark two cases of building and the
same, the only, two new provinces; he does not appear to conniect
any of these with the remark. Instead he justifies and introduces
it by the sentence, 'Iste quinquennio tolerabilis visus'.
The difficulty in Victor's account is not only the attribution
of events to be dated outside Nero's first five years to those
years; it might be argued that Victor, or his source, was quite
capable of making such a chronological mis-
1 F. A. Lepper, "Some Reflections on the 'Quinquennium Neronis'
", JRS XLVII (I957) 95 ff.; hereafter cited as, Lepper. 2 Lepper
96-ioo.
3 S. Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus 5, 1-4; Inccrhi
Auctoris Epitome de Caesaribus, 5, x-5. These may conveniently be
found, Lepper 95.
4 Distare, Epit.; differre, Victor. The claim that Trajan often
made this remark ('saepius' in Victor; 'solitum' in the Epit.) is
of course merely the conventional way of introducing a 'bon mot'
not tied by its content to a particular occasion. Cf. e.g. Schol.
Juv. V, IO9 (be- low n. 6i).
5 In this article I refer to the author of the remark as
'Trajan', for the sake of brevity, and in order not to prejudge the
question whether the emperor Trajan was, or was not, identical with
him.
-
42 OSWYN MURRAY
take in good faith.6 There is a further and more significant
oddity in the con- trast between the grounds given for 'Traj an's'
remark, Nero's building activi- ties and his new provinces, and the
way Victor continues his story: 'Quare satis compertum est neque
aevum impedimento virtuti esse; eam facile mutari corrupto per
licentiam ingenio, omissamque adolescentiae quasi legem permi-
ciosius repeti. Namque eo dedecore reliquum vitae egit, uti pigeat
pudeatque memorare huiuscemodi quempiam, nedum rectorem gentium,
fuisse'. Victor's reasons for 'Traj an's' remark do not wholly
explain the moral and the picture of deterioration he draws, for
these are concerned with virtus as a whole not merely with building
and imperial expansion. Victor indeed does not say that Nero was
'tantus' solely 'augenda urbe'; the 'maxime' he inserts may be
intend- ed to cover more than the provinces which follow. In this
case he would be very much closer to the Epitomator than he has
hitherto been thought to be.7 Certainly the reader, whether or not
Victor intended him to, is bound to at- tribute some further moral
force to 'Trajan's' remark, if he is to take the continuation of
the story seriously;8 in or behind Victor's account lies an
interpretation of the remark strangely similar to that of the
Epitomator. It is this, combined with his chronological errors,
which gives grounds for suspect- ing that Victor has in some way
distorted the story.
The Epitomator's version is more straightforward in its
implications; the reason for 'Trajan's' remark was that for five
years Nero seemed 'tolerabilis'. The word is weak; but it plainly
does not refer alone, or even mainly, to build- ing and conquest.
For the Epitomator, the Roman emperors from Tiberius to Vitellius
constituted a continuous succession of tyranni9 - with the possible
exception of Nero's first five years. From his picture of the
virtues of Augustus and Vespasian, and the vices of the remaining
emperors, the usual distinction between tyranni and boni
imperatores emerges.'0 Conquests and building appear as creditable
activities; but they could be undertaken by bad emperors,1" and
Augustus is praised more highly for this concern for soldiers'
lives than for his conquests.12 It is in the private life of the
emperor and his attention to his subjects, that the contrast
between princeps and tyrannus is apparent; his
S Cf. below, note 15. 7 Eg. by Lepper 96. 8 It might be argued
that the continuation should not be taken seriously, on the
grounds that the theme of the 'lubricum adulescentiae' is a
commonplace (cf. W. Hartke, Rdmische Kinderkaiser (195I), index s.
v., esp. 205 and n. 5, with the correction 'Nero' for 'Verus'), and
that it and the notion of deterioration probably come from the
Common Source (Cf. 'Namque', Epit. 5, 5; Lepper ioo). The second
point tends to show that the original source has been altered in
Victor. And, as Hartke sees, Victor or his source is here denying a
commonplace. Whatever weight may be put on an author's use of a
common- place, his denial of one shows him to be thinking
seriously.
9 Epit. 9, i6 of Vespasian (not in Victor); cf. of Trajan, I3,
10. 10 See in genieral, L. Wickert, 'Princeps', RE XXII, 2 (I954),
esp. 2IIgff., 2222ff. 1 Tiberius, 2, 8f.; Claudius, 4, 4. 12 I,
I0.
-
The 'quinquennium Neronis' and the Stoics 43
'clementia', his attitude to 'amici', his 'vitae species',
'liberalia studia' and 'civilitas' are opposed to arrogance,
'libido', 'stuprum', 'avaritia', and 'saevitia'. It is from this
point of view that Nero is regarded, and it is conceded that in his
first five years he may have been tolerable. The judgment is moral,
with political overtones; and it fits well with the continuation of
the story in both the Epitomator and Victor. It is implied that
'Traj an' himself would have used a more positive word than
'tolerabilis'; the Epitomator, or rather his source, knows
better.
The view that Nero only 'tolerabilis visus' in his early years
has landed its author in a difficulty - Augustus and Vespasian, if
they had their faults, were at least better than Nero at his best -
in the circumstances could 'Trajan's' remark be genuine? Victor
knows the story to be true; he can gaily say, 'tantus fuit.... uti
merito Traianus saepius testaretur....' The Epitomator merely
claims, 'Unde quidam prodidere. . .. '; doubts exist.13 Within the
general relation between the two authors set out by Lepper, one
explanation of this difference in tone stands out as the most
likely. The Epitomator, or his source, believed the grounds for
'Trajan's' remark to be in Nero's virtus; but Nero's charac- ter
was established as bad - the most that could be admitted was that
in his early years he was 'tolerabilis'. This was not enough, as he
saw, to explain 'Trajan's' very definite placing of Nero in a
category apart from all other emperors. So he was compelled to
express doubts as to the genuineness of the story. Victor on the
other hand thought that he had discovered the grounds for
'Trajan's' remark in Nero's activities as a builder and in the pro-
vinces; he could therefore assert that the story was true. If this
explanation is the right one, it is then fair to say that the
Epitomator is either independent of Victor, or completely
disregarded him at this point in favour of another (presumably the
Common) source. And in view of the moral outlook evident even
behind Victor's account, it is plausible to suppose that the
Epitomator copied the Common Source correctly, and that 'augenda
urbe maxime' is Victor's own discovery.
Two further considerations can be brought to support the view
that 'Victor both rearranged the order in the quinquennium passage
and in doing so mis- represented the argument of the Common
Source'.'4 Firstly the Common Source probably followed the usual
practice of imperial biography in giving 'a catalogue of virtues
out of time-order before passing over with a word of warning to the
vices and crimes.' Such an arrangement appears to be behind the
Epitomator, and the position of the 'Trajanic' story among the
virtues gives a good reason for Victor's otherwise stupid mistakes
in chronology.15 It
13 Contrast Caes. 3, 7, 'uti merito . . '; where the Epit. for
what seems the same story, has 3, 3, 'ut non immerito'. 14 Lepper
IOO.
15 But note that on this arrangement of the Common Source, it
would seem to have contained the moral of the 'lubricum
adulescentiae reversed' after Nero's praise-worthy
-
44 OSWYN MURRAY
would seem that, faced with the story in the section devoted to
Nero's praiseworthy achievements, he used the achievements to
reinforce the plausi- bility of the remark.
Secondly, the legend of Nero in the late empire is of importance
in this connection."6 He was not entirely the stock tyrannus he had
earlier been, but appears in a light which in certain circles in
the late empire would entitle him to respect - as a
'Sportsmann-Kaiser', and possibly as a persecutor of the
Christians. Given the prevailing antiquarian interests of senators
of the period, it would be surprising if he were not remembered as
a great builder."7 In all these aspects, and especially the last,
he could have been compared with Traj an.
That a comparison was made in the late empire, is suggested by a
passage in the Historia Augusta's life of Aurelian. Writing of
Aurelian's extension of the pomerium, the author says:
achievements (cf. above, n. 8). Therefore either it reverted at
the end of the section on the virtues of Nero to his especial
promise in youth (so Lepper ioo), or it attached all Nero's
virtuous actions to his 'adulescentia'. In the latter case Victor's
chronological mistakes may be attributed to the Common Source. Such
errors are of course endemic in the twofold schema.
16 For a bibliography of works on the Nero-legend, mainly in
literature, see CAH X, 984; add M. P. Charlesworth, JRS XL (I950)
72 ff. On the significance of the Nero contorniates, the largest
non-literary class of evidence for a Nero-legend, cf. the works
cited Lepper Ioo, n. 39. I have seen no discussion which takes full
account of both literary and artistic evidence: until such is
produced, the significance of the contorniates will remain
undecided. C. Pascal, Nerone nella storia annedotica e nella
leggenda (I923) omits both contorniates and the quinquennium story;
A. Alfoldi, die Kontorniaten (I943) 59, can say 'die ganze
Literatur der spatromischen Heiden ... nur Worte der Abscheu fiir
diesen Prototyp aller Tyrannen enthAlt'.
17 Some examples of monuments still remembered and attributed to
Nero in the fourth century: Thermnae Neronianae (Platner-Ashby,
Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (1929) 53I; Circus
Maxinius (o. c. I17ff.); Circus Gai et Neronis, with its famous
obelisk = the 'Palatium Neronis' (o. c. I13; cf. R. Lanciani, Pagan
and Christian Rome (I895) I28); Colossus Neronis (Platner-Ashby o.
c. I30); Arcus Neroniani (o. c. 40); Macellum Magnum (o. c. 323);
?Porticus Margaritaria (o. c. 423); Pons Neronianus (o. c. 401).
Cf. Campus Neronis (o. c. 94); Vestiarium Neronis (H. Jordan,
Topographie der Stadt Ronz im Alter- thum (I871) II, 428f.);
Terbentinum Neronis (= obeliscus Neronis; 0. c. 430). The 'topo-
graphical' reputation of Nero increased, rather than diminished;
for other medieval 'monumenta Neronis' see A. Graf, Roma nella
memnoria e nelle immaginazioni del Medio Evo (I882) I, 359ff., and
cf. the Torre delle Milizie, still popularly called the Torre di
Nerone.
On Trajan's great name as a builder, it is sufficient to cite
Amm. Marc. XVI, I0, 15. For the ubiquity of his name on buildings,
cf. XXVII, 3, 7; Epit. 41, 13. It should not be for- gotten that
the most natural comparison between Nero and Trajan in the fourth
century lay in their building activities (a possibility mentioned
but not developed, J. M. C. Toynbee, JRS XXXV (I945) iI8), not in
their love of games or persecution of the Christians; the Nero
contorniates may merely commemorate a great builder. Nor, if an
alternative ex- planation of them is to be sought, slhould the
influence of the quinquennium story itself be ignored.
-
The 'quinquennium Neronis' and the Stoics 45
Pomerio autem neminem principum licet addere nisi eum qui agri
barbarici aliqua parte Romanam rem publicam locupletaverit. addidit
autem Augustus, addidit Traianus, addidit Nero, sub quo Pontus
Polemoniacus et Alpes Cottiae Romano nomini sunt tributae.18
For Augustus' extension of the pomerium there is at least
respectable literary evidence.19 But Trajan and Nero seem certainly
to have been singled out in error; that their names should have
been coupled in this way is then significant. Von Blumenthal has
tried to save the credit of the Historia Augusta :20 it is certain
that Trajan did not extend the pomerium;2l he therefore takes
Trajan as a mistake for Claudius, on the evidence of the order,
'Augustus - Traj an - Nero'. But the order is unchronological for
stylistic reasons. The justifi- cation for extending the pomerium
is extension of the empire; Augustus' and Trajan's conquests were
too well known to need mention: Nero's had to be listed - hence his
name must come last. Von Blumenthal then accepts Nero's extension,
for which this passage is the only evidence, quoting with approval
the suggestion22 that Nero regarded the creation of Pontus
Polemoniacus as a conquest! The silence of the Historia Augusta on
better attested extensions is decisive; it is at the most evidence
for the views of its own day - or Aurelian's, if an official
document is here being quoted.23 The passage then implies that it
was possible to compare Nero's 'conquests' with Traj an's, and
invent a false extension of the pomerium.
Given these various possible grounds for comparison between Nero
and Trajan, it becomes significant that the actual Trajanic story
told in the Epito- mator, and implied in Victor, did not make use
of them; instead it took another side of Trajan, which might
loosely be described as the 'optimus princeps' aspect - the one
approach to comparison which even in the fourth century appeared
implausible, as the doubts of the Epitomator attest. If the story
had been invented in the fourth century, it would be surprising
that this, the most far-fetched, explanation of the remark, should
have appeared as the one intend- ed. But if Victor, faced with a
remark and an explanation which he saw to be unsatisfactory, wished
to increase its probability and thus to strengthen the moral he
draws, the way he seems to distort a schematic biographer would
18 SHA, Aurel., 2I, 1of. 19 Viz. Tac. Ann. XII, 23, 5; Dio LV,
6, 6.- against the silence of others, especially the
Res Gestae, and the absence of epigraphic evidence. It is plain
from my argument here that the testimony of the HA for an actual
extension by Augustus is worthless. Cf. Von Blumen- thal, RE XXI, 2
(1952) I873f.; M. T. Griffin, JRS LII (I962) 109f.
20 1. C. I874-5. 21 Notizie degli Scavi XI (1933) 240ff.; Cippi
of Vespasian and Hadrian found together
with identical numbers. 22 D. Detlefsen, Hermes XXI (I886) 519f.
28 1. c. The HA passage cannot be used directly to explain Victor's
'augenda urbe'
(rightly, J. G. C. Anderson, JRS I (i9ii) I76 and n. 3).
-
46 OSWYN MURRAY
be wholly explicable as a typical piece of fourth century
rationalisation. Trajan was remembered as the great builder and
conqueror, and as 'optimus princeps'; Nero was certainly not the
last. A comparison between Trajan and Nero would therefore lead
Victor to emphasise the first two and play down the last, to
attempt to stress 'augenda urbe maxime' at the expense of
'tolerabilis'.24 The remark of 'Trajan' thus emerges as older than
the fourth century, and as justified, not in terms of Nero's
building and provincial additions, but by some admittedly hesitant
moral judgment.
The attribution of the 'Neronis quinquennium' to the first five
years of Nero's reign is not, of course, free from suspicion,
although it appears in both versions. The theme of emperors'
degeneration from a good beginning occurs often enough for
suspicions to arise (perhaps unjustly) that it was a common- place
of imperial biography. Thus it may be that, faced with an undated
but favourable story about Nero, the tradition would naturally
ascribe it to his first years. Yet, especially when Victor's
examples are dismissed, the only time of Nero's reign which can be
said to qualify in any way for the title of a quin- quennium and
for praise, is the period from 54 to 59 _2 five years which were
tolerable and which were clearly marked off from the later tyranny
by the murder of Nero's mother. Such a turning point was recognised
during Nero's reign itself.26 Even if the sources had no evidence
for their dating, it must be admitted as correct.
* * *
2. The Emperor and the Philosopher
The Epitomator's 'tolerabilis' is not, as he and other
historians since have seen, sufficient to explain the judgment of
'Trajan'. For Nero is classed apart from, that is surely, above all
other emperors - not with the numerous emperors who might at some
time have been called 'tolerabilis'. Once the 'examples' of Victor
are dismissed, the traditional question returns: what was the
basis, in fact or opinion, for 'Trajan's' claim?
24 The attempts of Anderson (1. c.) und F. Haverfield (ib.
178f.) to reconcile the 'ex- empla' of Victor with a 'quinquennium'
not intended by him and with the facts of Nero's reign have been
answered sufficiently by Lepper 95-IOO. One point may be added: as
Lepper shows, Trajan himself could not have rated Nero's building
activities far above those of all other emperors (96). If therefore
Victor's 'augenda urbe maxime' were to be taken seriously, it would
point, not as Anderson wished, to a genuine remark of Trajan, but
to a fourth century origin for the story. But in this case it would
be extremely difficult to account for the existence, which I hope I
have shown, of a moral approach explicit in the Epitomator and
implicit in Victor.
25 An exact computation, from Oct. 13th, 54, to the Quinquatria
of 59 (March igth- 23rd), gives four years, five months. When used
in place of the adjective 'quinquennalis', 'quinquennium' may
designate a period of four years (cf. Statius, SilV. II, 2, 6; III,
5, 92; V, 3, I13; J. D. P. Bolton, CQ XLII (1948) 82f.). Here
'quinquennium' is used in its usual sense. 26 Tac., Ann. XV, 67.
Cf. the remarks of Lepper I02.
-
The 'quinquennium Neronis' and the Stoics 47
A second question emerges from the attemps of Anderson and
Haverfield to redate the quinquennium. Both Victor and the
Epitomator, faced with 'Trajan's' remark, were convinced that the
reference was to Nero's first five years. But, as Anderson and
Haverfield saw, there is no grounds for their conviction in the
remark itself. It was not 'primo quinquennio' that 'Trajan' said,
nor does the Latin even necessarily carry the meaning, 'The
Quinquenni- um'. Without either qualification or prior knowledge of
a time known as 'Neronis quinquennium', the phrase has no clear
temporal meaning - unless it be taken in the wholly impossible
sense of 'any quinquennium of Nero's reign you like to take'.27
Thus both Victor and the Epitomator must explain the meaning of
'Neronis quinquennium' before they can record the remark. The
second question is then: how did the phrase 'Neronis quinquennium'
come to be known to designate Nero's first five years? If 'Trajan'
himself was respon- sible by his remark for both the coining of the
phrase and the judgment, he must be thought of as presenting it
within a context which would enable the phrase to be understood.
But if his remark was the product of a previous jud- gment,
agreeing with it, not an original and unique personal reassessment,
the question must be asked: from what popular or influential source
did the jud- gment and phrase arise, that they should have formed
the basis for a remark attributed to Trajan? There is a further
consequence that, in the first case, the terminus post quem for the
claim is Trajan's accession; in the second, a Flavian origin could
be considered.
* * *
First the problems involved in the former alternative, that
judgment and phrase originated with 'Traj an'. Three possible
solutions seem worth discussing.
It could be supposed that at some point during the transmission
of 'Traj an's' remark a qualifying adjective was omitted, that what
he actually said was, for example, 'Neronis primo quinquennio'.
Such an hypothesis is implausible. The resilience of 'bons mots' to
the ravages of oral or written tradition is notorius; and when they
do succumb, it is generally in the directions of incor- porating
explanatory glosses or removing irrelevancies, not in the omission
of necessary detail. Moreover this assumption would remove only one
difficulty, that of the dating; the problem of the judgment behind
the remark would re- main intractable.
It would be more plausible to suggest that 'Trajan's' remark was
originally made in a context. Thus the remark, as it appears in the
sources, would only be part of the actual story, a story that
listed perhaps, as reasons for the judg- ment, events which in
themselves were known to belong to the first five years. This
solution finds an analogy in the procedure of Victor, who felt
impelled to provide examples, with disastrous results because of
his ignorance of Neronian
27 Oddly, Haverfield seems to have thought this idea possible
(1. c. i78f.). Bolton (1. c. 83, n. 5) rightly dismisses it.
-
48 OSWYN MURRAY
chronology. Plainly this solution must suppose that, by the time
the story reached fourth century ears, it had lost its original
context, or Victor's examples and the Epitomator's doubts would not
have been needed. But such a reduction of the story to its centre,
the bare remark of 'Traj an', is not in itself impossible.
One difficulty makes this solution improbable. It is supposed
that someone, in the second century or later, coined the Trajanic
claim, not as a flippant paradox, but with reasons; he spoke,
having before his mind the known achieve- ments of Nero during the
quinquennium. A few modern historians may have found it possible to
accept the judgment ;28 but they would hardly have inven- ted it,
and it would be still less likely to originate from a person living
in the empire. Such possibilities as efficiency in provincial
government, foreign policy or central administration would be
ignored; the judgment of a Roman would be on conquest, respect for
tradition, and above all character. Trajan, the exemplar of
'moderatio'29 might possibly be made to praise Nero, though not to
rate him above Augustus, Titus, even the 'Ti.Caesaris prima
tempora'.30 Trajan, 'fortissimus princeps',3' might look to Corbulo
and Nero's eastern policy until 6o with some approval, yet he could
hardly rate this above the achievements of Augustus and his
generals. Most important, Trajan, 'optimus princeps',31 found no
parallel in Nero.
Whether Nero's vices were hereditary33, or whether with his
nobility he inherited natural virtue and his teachers must bear all
the blame,3 no-one postulated a quinquennium of virtue.35 By the
time he reached the imperial position he was already a potential
tyrant, and in the eyes of the second cen- tury he quickly showed
it. Some of the actual events of the quinquennium might possibly be
attributed to others ;36 but one important crime was commit- ted
during it, a crime which seemed to later writers both obnoxious and
a presage of subsequent events - the murder of Britannicus.
Certainly Josephus
28 Opinions of such historians are to be found, Anderson 1. c.
173, Lepper 95. 29 The central theme of Pliny's Panegyric is
Trajan's 'moderatio' (cf. 56, 3) - the es-
sential virtue of a Roman princeps. Cf. J. B6ranger, Recherches
sur, l'Aspect Iddologique du Principat (I953) 159. 30 Sen. de Clem.
I, i, 6; cf. Suet. Tib. 26-37; Dio LVII, 7-12.
31 ILS 296 (the arch at Beneventum); cf. Pliny, Pan. 2, 6.
Against this parallel, Suet. Nero i8.
32 The title 'optimus' needs no illustration; on its meaning,
B6ranger o.c. 249 (contra Ch. Wirszubski, Libertas (I950)
153f.).
" Suet. Nero I, 2 ff., or at least innate: 6, I; Dio LXI, 2.
Seneca recognised it straight- way: Suet. Nero 7, 1; Schol. Juv. V,
IO9; Tac. Ann. XV, 62. 34 See n. 54.
35 Some of his contemporaries excused his early behaviour as the
'lubricum adule- scentiae' (Tac. Ann. XIII, 2, 2; cf. XIV, 56, 2),
a notion specifically rejected by Suetonius (Nero 26, 2); that it
did not pass was perhaps due to the corruption of supreme powver
(cf. ib. 37, 3; Dio. LXI, 4, 2).
35 The 'prima novo principatu mors' and the deification of
Claudius to Agrippina; but what of the neglect of Octavia in favour
of Acte and Poppaea, or the nocturnal expeditions culminating in a
suicide?
-
The 'quinquennium Neronis' and the Stoics 49
attests that at the time few knew about it,37 and Tacitus
produces reasons put forward by those who did know and who sought
to excuse it.38 But it is opinion after Nero's death which matters;
by the time that Trajan came to power the murder was known,
embellished39 and detested.40 Josephus knew it as a fact; Tacitus
records, does not approve, the excuses. No Roman of the second cen-
tury or later could have postulated a 'Neronis quinquennium' if he
were at the same time enumerating Nero's personal achievements
during his early years.
Thirdly, a different context might be postulated. 'Trajan's'
remark speaks not of Nero, but of a 'Neronis quinquennium'; it
might be possible for the story to have referred originally, not to
Nero himself, the murderer of Britanni- cus, but to his friends who
Trv Opxtv &7r(axaV 7apEXOov xcd 8MLLX-asv 0Cp' oaov &uv=6av
&pLa' xoO CcxL6o'a, 'aO' i'7r0 7dvT'ov &vOpct,r,v o'o1
e7raLvvOv0L41. This would fit well with Greek ideas of kingship,
which became widespread in Rome in the second century; if the
remark was somewhat indirect praise of Nero himself, yet the
ca?sceug was responsible for having good pLO.42 Moreover the notion
of a philosophic adviser behind the throne is often present in
philosophic writings on kingship, and therefore in discus- sions
about emperors in the second century.43
37 Nkpwv 8i 'r)v &pXv oU'rcoq opoc)a v BpEraoVtX6V Av &
8 bX ca rotcT MoXXoT &VaLprL 8La ymapp&&Xv, C?0vep6; 8'
olux eiL ,uvxxpxv T'0 rXav Srpmr?v &ocuroi vepVEUL. Ant. XX,I53
(8,2).
98 A nn. XIII,I7, 2; it was a traditional excuse-Philo, Legatio
68. "9Tac. Ann. XIII,I7, 3. 40 Octavia, esp. i67f.; cf. Dio LXI, I,
2: rE yap &v -rL4 xcxl Ta1 'rrv &XX),v noO3Lmroxc
xocro&Upavro;
41 Dio LXI, 4, i. It is the view of most writers who accept the
quinquennium as a politi- cal reality, most explicitly R. Waltz, La
Vie Politique de Seneque (1909) 243. A modified version is
persuasively argued, Lepper IOI f.
42 Cf. e. g. Dio of Prusa, Or. I, 30ff.; III, 86ff., esp.
I30ff.; Ecphantus ap. Stob. IV, 7 65 (277 Hense); Themistius Or. I,
I 7b; Synesius Or. I, i Id-I 2c. Parallels in earlier literature,
G. Barner, Comparantur inter se Graeci de regentium hominum
virtutibus auctores (Diss. Marburg I889) 17f., 21, 23f. Cf. SHA
Alex. 65, 4, with Lepper's remarks I03.
43 The theory, Dio of Prusa, Or. II, 26; XLIX, esp. 6ff.; Plut.
Mor. 776ff. (nept ro5 OTC IAL)Laroc ToZ; 'ye,u6a &Z rvv
9LX6ao9ov 8cXfyeaaL). The philosophical practice of re- writing
history to make it conform with this theory, begins seriously for
Roman history with the source for Philostratus' Life of Apollonius
of Tyana (for date F. Grosso, Acme VII (I954) 333 f.). Apollonius
succeeded in advising or abusing Nero, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian
and Nerva - a feat which required some travelling. For the fourth
century, by which time a philosopher was assigned to every emperor
who reigned any length in the first two centuries A.D. - except
apparently Gaius, Claudius, Nero, Domitian and Commodus - cf. the
indexes of Julian and Themistius under the appropriate emperor; e.
g. Them. Or. X, 13ob: Augustus honoured Areius as highly as
Agrippa! (Cf. J. A. Straub, Vom Herrscherideal in der Spdt- antike
(1939) i6off.) For an earlier example cf. Macro and Silanus as
philosophic advisers of Gaius (Philo, Legatio 4i-86; E. R.
Goodenough, The Politics of Philo Judaeus (1938) 103ff.). The
opposite picture, the philosopher at the court of the tyrant, is
portrayed in Octavia 377-592 (cf. P. Faider, .ltudes sur Sdneque
(I921) 25ff.; C. J. Herrington CQ XI (I96I) x8ff.); if Seneca in 62
was cast in this role, he might possibly have been conceived as
playing its opposite earlier.
4 Historia XVI, i
-
50 OSWYN MURRAY
Such a notion meets some difficulties. Nero was, according to
Suetonius, expressly warned off philosophy by his mother;" the
author of the story might not have known that - he could at least
point to the de Clementia, which poses as a treatise addressed to
Nero. Again it was doubtful whether Nero possessed even the
rudiments of natural virtue. The acceptance of such a pupil might
reflect discredit on his tutor; a philosopher's first concern must
be for his own reputation. The danger to him at the court of a
tyrant was that, if he did not lose his life for 7rxpp-lao, he
gained a reputation for xoXLxxeOC." Seneca did not escape the
charge. 4" Nero was under the control of Seneca and Burrus, either
until the death of Burrus or until the murder of Britannicus;47
neither date gives a quinquennium. In the face of a remark which
appears to give a very definite statement of duration, it is
difficult to postulate an author unaware of chronology.
The verdict of later writers on Seneca hardly supports the idea
that Nero's early years were a golden age for philosophers, for
what praise Seneca did receive was not for his philosophy. He was
remembered as a wealthy patron, a good businessman, a persuasive
stylist and a politician with double standards;"48 about his
statesmanship49 and his philosophy there is 'une sorte de conspira-
tion du silence'.50 When his political ideals were discarded,
Seneca retired to philosophy, wishing that he should at least be
remembered as a philosopher.5 In this, as in all else, he failed.
Still less was he pictured in the role of Cheiron to Nero's
Achilles ;52 among the lists of emperors who had, according to
tradi-
44 Suet. Nero 52. Other mothers did the same; Tac. Agr. 4, 4;
SHA Alex. 14, 5. 45 On xoAaxetcx cf. Dio of Prusa Or. III, I2-24.
46 Dio LXI, 10, 2. 47 See below p. 5I 48 Cf. e. g. Tac. Ann. XIII,
3; Quint. X, I, I25ff.; Martial I, 6i; IV, 4o; Pliny NH XIV,
4 (51); Juv. V, I07ff. For Seneca's posthumous reputation cf.
esp. the faultless discussion of Faider o. c. pt. i, c. 1. His
political reputation was assailed in his lifetime: Tac. Ann. XIII,
42; cf. Dio LXI, io.
49 Even Tacitus, who is not unfavourable, neglected his
statesmanship; cf. Ann. XIII 2, 2; Faider o. c. 49ff., 59; I. S.
Ryberg, TAPA LXXIII (1942) 400ff. Tacitus' relatively favourable
picture betrays the insidious influence of a major source, Fabius
Rusticus, which he knew to be biased (contra, R. Syme, Tacitus
(1958) 582, whose explanation seems not to account for Tacitus'
neglect of the statesman in Seneca).
64 Faider o. c. 64. For an unfavourable view cf. Fronto, de
orationibus I55 Naber = II I00 Haines (Quintilian's qualifications
(X, I, 129) concern the influence of his rhetoric in propagating
his philosophy, not the philosophical content). It is for this
reason that I prefer to date the double herm of Socrates and Seneca
(C. Blumel, Rimische Bildnisse, Kat. d. Sammlung ant. Skulpturen,
Berlin (I933) 44) to the second half of the first century (with E.
Hubner, Arch. Zeit. XXXVIII (I880) 2I), not to the third century
(J. Sieveking, Arch. Anz. XXXVI (I92I) 353). It fits the circle of
Fabius Rusticus and the author of the Octavia; the reference is
primarily to the philosophic death (cf. Tac. Ann. XV, 64, 3).
51 He planned a comprehensive 'philosophia moralis', to be
balanced perhaps by a 'philosophia naturalis' (cf. e. g. de Otio.
4, 2; F. Prechac, Introduction to de Beneficiis xv-xxii). Only
logic would be omitted from this, the first Latin 'corpus' of
philosophy.
62 Cf. Dio of Prusa, Or. LVIII.
-
The 'quinquennium Neronis' and the Stoics 51
tion, philosophic mentors, one pair of names is conspicuously
absent.53 As an educator Seneca was remembered, if at all, as the
upocvvoM&ocaxocXoq: xaxi$v [COJEOv, ()q ot{LtL, XoLnL6ve Oc
MckaxocxoL OC8XTYx yap &pSr) xXl xooxcax?y '
It is then difficult to imagine a 'Trajan' sufficiently
unconscious of chrono- logy, and holding a sufficiently unusual
view of Seneca, to present his remark in all seriousness.
From the discussion of these three possibilities, some
conclusions emerge: The remark itself, as attributed to Traj an,
was not originally provided
with a list of actions which both justified and dated the
quinquennium, nor is it likely that it originally contained an
internal time reference.
Therefore, if the phrase 'Neronis quinquennium' is to be allowed
to refer to a specific period, the remark presupposes a source,
literary or in current usage, older than the Trajanic story, for
the phrase 'Neronis quinquennium'.
The judgment implied in the story did not originate in the
second century or later; it seems to reflect a tradition earlier
than the standard picture of Nero's reign, which had already been
formed and accepted by the time Trajan came to power.55
Whoever did make the judgment and give currency to the phrase
'Neronis quinquennium' either did not accept the murder of
Britannicus and other symptoms of the coming tyranny, or had strong
reasons for ignoring them.
Seneca and his apologists certainly had such reasons. Fabius
Rusticus, perhaps, although writing only shortly before Tacitus,
under the Flavians, and still alive under Trajan, might have taken
an old-fashioned or unusual view in his attempt to exonerate
Seneca. If the judgment had been that of the reputable and often
consulted Fabius, it should have appeared in Tacitus or Dio at
least ;66 and two further facts seem decisive against Fabius having
any influence at all on the story.
Firstly, no apologist of Seneca postulated, or could have
postulated, a quinqutennium. Two dates only were acceptable for the
time when Seneca
53 Only at Themistius, Or. XIII, 173b; see n. 43. The absence of
Nero and Seneca is very striking, in the face of far less suitable
pairs, such as Tiberius and Thrasyllus (Themi- stius, Or. V, 63d;
Julian Ep. ad Them. 265c).
54 Dio LXI, IO, 2; Suda s. v. 'A?kov8poq AtyaZos 1128 Adler,
with reference to two tutors of Nero, Alexander of Aegae the
Peripatetic and Chaeremon the Stoic. The 'Institutio Traiani'
follows this tradition (Plut. ed. Bernardakis, VII, I83).
55 On the essential unity of judgment of the sources for Nero,
and its early formulation, cf. K. Heinz, Das Bild Kaiser Neros bei
Seneca, Tacitus, Sueton u. Cassius Dio, Diss. Bern (1948).
56 Lepper 102 rightly rejects the possibility that the virtuous
quinquennium appeared in Tacitus or Dio. For Fabius' reputation cf.
Tac. Ann. XIII, 20, 3; Agr. 10, 3.
4.
-
52 OSWYN MURRAY
ceased to be of importance. 'Mors Burri infregit Senecae
potentiam';57 the retirement of Seneca in 62 was obvious and
conclusive evidence for the end of his influence. For those who
still felt uncomfortable with a Seneca powerful at the time of the
murders of Britannicus and Agrippina, and during the first
theatrical performances of Nero, a second date offered itself: "`Ot
'oQ5 BpzT'aMLxoi5 TCXeUtrJ,GMVTOq oVx6) O' 6vvXocq x0Cl o Boi5ppo4
i7L,LSXeLOCV kwLtv OkxpLtT -V XCQLVGV VrOLQUVTO, &Xat 2y,7PL) d
XOa ,'TpZcevg 7rG LCyoc&s 7a pLa6XLV.58 This statement is
favourable to Seneca, and contrary to Dio's own picture; it may
stem from Fabius Rusticus. Such an apologist of Seneca would do
well to minimise his importance after 55.
Secondly, it seems that the method Fabius Rusticus used to
exculpate Seneca was not to suppose a period when Nero was
tolerable, but rather to paint him as black as possible, a worse
tyrant than even the elder Pliny made him.59 Seneca was the
philosopher of the Octavia, a man who found himself involved in the
education of a child naturally cruel and bestial, and tried to re-
strain him:60 'a brutal lion, whose inborn ferocity would return
once he had tasted human blood'.6' Such a picture has no room for a
quinquennium of hap- piness. If there were other apologists of
Seneca, the same two objections seem fatal to any attempt to
attribute a 'Neronis quinquennium' to them.2
3. Trajan and the Stoic Biography There is one explanation which
fits the five year period and a favourable
judgment on it, gives a literary source and a context for the
phrase 'Neronis quinquennium', and even makes the attribution to
Trajan of the remark at the least probable, perhaps even true
report. The evidence for it is purely circumstantial; if it were
not for the fact that no other explanation which is not open to
very serious objections can be found, it would be fair to dismiss
it as no more than an hypothesis.
The outstanding event of the year 59 was the murder of
Agrippina; the outstanding political fact about the murder was
Thrasea Paetus' ostentatious exit from the senate during the
subsequent session. An open display of opposi- tion marked what
most senators thought, but were afraid to express; so much is
clear. But to appreciate fully the great significance of this
occurrence,
67 Tac. Ann. XIV, 52, I. 58 Dio LXI, 7, 5. Si An attitude even
more hostile to Nero than that of other writers can be seen in
Tac.
Ann. XIV, 2, 3; cf. Faider o. C. 35. 60 Tac. Ann. XIV, I3, 3
suggests that it was fear of his mother, rather than Seneca's
in-
fluence, which held Nero back. 61 Schol. Juv. V, io9; (Seneca)
inter familiares solitus dicere: non fore saevo illo leoni
quin gustato semel hominis cruore ingenita redeat saevitia. 62 I
omit a discussion of those historians favourable to Nero. (Jos.
Ant. XX, I54 (8, 3).
They will have claimed more than a quinquennium.
-
The 'quinquennium Neronis' and the Stoics 53
it is necessary briefly to recall certain salient features of
Thrasea's relations with Nero.
Little is known of his activities under Claudius.63 A native of
Patavium, he was by 42 already married to Arria, daughter of A.
Caecina Paetus. In that year he tried to dissuade Caecina's wife,
Arria the elder, from committing suicide after the failure of the
revolt of Camillus Scribonianus." He does not seenm to have been
implicated in the revolt, although his later activities suggest
that he must have been in sympathy with it. This, and his family
connections, may have retarded his career under Claudius.,"
A senior praetorian at the time of Nero's accession, he was
given the consu- late in 56; an appointment to be connected with
the programme which Nero declared in his speech to the senate66 -
Thrasea was certainly the man to ensure that the 'antiqua munia' of
the senate were respected. Further it must have been during Nero's
early years that he was elected quindecimvir sacris faciun- dis.67
By 57 his influence in the senate was important; for it was in this
year his 'auctoritas' which helped to get Cossutianus Capito
condemned for repe- tundae."8 The trial was a 'cause c6l6bre' ;69
the princeps was interested, and at least thought by the
prosecution to be opposed to Capito.70 Thrasea's action must have
been important to win the enmity of Capito, but it did not involve
him in a clash with Nero. Honours and respect came to him from Nero
- the more striking if, as is likely, Claudius had neglected him.
Thrasea's co- operation and approval, combined with his known
principles, were a guarantee of the genuineness of Nero's
intentions towards the senate. 'Nec defuit fides'.
A curious incident in 58 has received from Tacitus more
attention than he admits that it deserved.7- A formal matter was
before the senate, a senatus- consultum allowing the Syracusans to
put on a gladiatorial contest with more than the permitted number
of combatants. Such requests were common; their discussion
according to Pliny only served to emphasise a tyranny.72 Suddenly
Thrasea spoke in opposition. His motion was defeated; but his
action was odd, bound to excite comment. The comment however, as
recorded in Tacitus, was still odder than his action. Thrasea
merely 'contra dixit'. But his detractors
63 For the known facts about Thrasea, cf. PIR2 II C II87; RE IV
(I90I) 99 no. 58. For his political views, Wirszubski, o. c. I38ff.
64 Pliny, Ep. III, I6, io.
65 But it should be remembered that the elder Arria was a friend
of Messalina (Dio LX, i6, 6); the friendship might have extended to
her son-in-law.
66 Tac. Ann. XIII, 4. 67 lb. XVI, 22, I; cf. 27, 3; 28, 3; M. W.
H. Lewis, The Official Priests of Rome under the
Julio-Claudians (I955) 54 no. 46. 68 Tac. Ann. XVI, 21; Cf.
XIII, 33, 3. 69 Quint. VI, I, I4; JUV. VIII, 92. 70 Quintilian
records a remark of the prosecution which implies this. Thrasea's
inter-
vention in the case suggests that he may have held a provincial
post in the area of Cilicia. 71 Tac. Ann. XIII, 49. 72 Pliny, Pan.
54, 4. For the attitude, cf. e.g. Junius Mauricus c.p. Pliny, Ep.
IV, 22, 3.
-
54 OSWYN MURRAY
seem to have argued that, if he were prepared to go this far, he
should have gone further - he should have spoken quite outside the
'relatio', claimed the right of a senator to take an irrelevant
topic of importance and demand a different 'relatio'. Such a right
existed, but it was not often used; there is no rea- son why
Thrasea should on this occasion have exercised it. His detractors
in fact may have been attacking him for going as far as he did, by
ironically suggesting that he should have gone further. Even so the
irony was heavy- handed: 'cetera per omnis imperii partis perinde
egregia quam si non Nero sed Thrasea regimen eorum teneret ?' The
charges made were universal; the irony has a sting, which owes
something to later events. It was re- peated with more relevance in
66, and a similar comparison was made of Helvidius Priscus in 70
.73Thrasea's defence was given in private; Tacitus' source for this
episode was, at least in part, an 'amicus Thraseae', and an
'amicus' who had enough sympathy with the charge to ask Thrasea the
reason why he had acted thus. The generalised attack suggests more
than surprise at this particular intervention; it suggests that
there were some who said, albeit ironically, 'why did Thrasea never
speak on more important affairs?' and others, friends of Thrasea,
who took this charge very seriously. Was the empire really
perfectly run at this time ?
In 59 this accusation ceased to be relevant; Thrasea's
prominence was now of a different sort. He left the senate in the
course of the debate after the mur- der of Agrippina; during
previous sycophancy he had merely remained silent, or muttered a
brief 'adsentior'.74 Despite Tacitus' derogatory comment, most
senators must have praised the action. In the same year he had
shown that he disapproved of Nero's appearance on the stage at the
Juvenalia.75
In 62 he intervened in the first maiestas case of the reign, the
trial of the tribune Antistius Sosianus for composing and reciting
'probrosa adversus principem carmina'.76 According to some, the
intention was that he should be condemned, and then reprieved by
Nero's power of intercession; that this should be believed, follows
from the trivial nature of the grounds for this first accusation
for maiestas and from the identity of his accuser, Cossutianus
Capito, now in favour at court. The plan was hardly intelligently
designed - precedents for this sort of 'clementia' were many, but
not encouraging to the senators to whom it was intended to appeal.
The influence of less expert poli- ticians than Seneca is apparent.
None dared to oppose the sentence of the consul designate, death
'more maiorum', until Thrasea argued a less severe penalty, exile
and confiscation of property. A vote was taken and Thrasea won, but
the consuls refused to record the verdict before they had consulted
Nero.
78 Tac. Ann. XVI, 28, 4; Hist. IV, 43. 74 Ann. XIV, I2, 2; XVI,
21, I; Dio LXI, I5, I. 75 Tac. Ann. XVI, 21, i; Dio LXI, 20, 4;
LXII, 26, 3f. 76 Tac. Ann. XIV, 48; cf. XVI, 2I.
-
The 'quinquennium Neronis' and the Stoics 55
Nero's anger was plain, but he could do nothing; in the vote
then taken his wishes were once again disregarded. The majority was
on Thrasea's side, and against Nero; the senate preferred
'clementia publica' to 'clementia Caesaris'.77
In 63, when the whole senate went to Antium to congratulate Nero
on the birth of his daughter, Thrasea was refused the imperial
presence. Tacitus found, in one of his sources at least, a
statement that Nero had later boasted to Seneca that he was
reconciled with Thrasea. This implies that there was no subsequent
action on Nero's part to contradict it.38 But in this year or the
next,79 Thrasea ceased to go to the senate, or to appear on
official occasions such as Poppaea's funeral. The personal level on
which the relationship be- tween Nero and Thrasea was carried out,
was further emphasised by the events leading to Thrasea's death.
The first intimation of this was again Nero's refusal to allow
Thrasea to present himself, on the occasion of Tiridates' entry
into Rome.80
Various points in the quarrel between Nero and Thrasea are
obscure. We do not know how far Thrasea's 'inertia' was
intentionally designed to reflect discredit on Nero's government,8'
nor in what relation Nero's refusal to allow Thrasea to appear at
court at Antium, and Thrasea's absence from the senate, stand - a
warning of displeasure perhaps, which Thrasea took too literally.
It is not clear how soon his absence was noticed, or when it became
oppressive. The significance of Thrasea's life of Cato depends on
its date.82 But it is plain that the origin of the quarrel, and the
turning point in their relations, occurred in 59. Before 59 Thrasea
had been to all appearances an honoured member of the senate,
accepting the offices given him and co-operating without demur.
After 59 no action of Thrasea's removed the impression that he
disapproved of, and was prepared on occasion to oppose, the way
things were going. Of the accusations brought against him by Nero's
supporters, none was earlier than the murder of Agrippina.
To certain circles the period before 59 in the life of Thrasea
must have presented some problems. The leading Stoic had for five
years apparently co- operated with an emperor who was known to be
perhaps the worst tyrant ever; he had then opposed him, and
eventually died. Moreover Thrasea was here in sharp contrast to his
son-in-law Helvidius Priscus; the latter had opposed a much better
emperor from the start. Praetor in 70, he had omitted all mention
of Vespasian in his edicts; he alone greeted him on his return
as
77 lb. XIV, 48- 7. 78 Ib. XV, 23, 5f.; cf. Plut. Mor. 8ioa: was
Capito the butt of this joke ? 79 Accusations against Thrasea, Tac.
Ann. XVI, 21f.; 27f.; cf. Dio LXII, 26, 3. 'Trien-
nium', in the mouth of a prosecutor, may imply no more than a
bare two years. 80 Tac. Ann. XVI, 24, I; cf. R. S. Rogers, TAPA XC
(I959) 224ff. It is not clear
whether Thrasea would have turned up, if left to make his own
decision. 81 Only the prosecution claimed so; ib. XVI, 22, 2; 28,
4. 82 Plut. Cato min. 25, 37. Cf. Schanz-Hosius, II4, 649f.
-
56 OSWYN MURRAY
'Vespasianus', a private citizen;83 he was arrested on one
occasion by the tribunes for derogatory remarks against the
emperor's sons, while Vespasian left the senate in tears, saying
'either my sons will succeed me, or no-one'.84 Under the Flavians
Stoic attitudes hardened, and their standards became yet more
absolute. To any Stoic writing after Helvidius Priscus' exile and
death about Thrasea Paetus, one important apologia was needed - why
did Thrasea co-operate for five years with a notoriously bad
emperor, unlike Helvidius? What others might call 'moderatio', a
Stoic couild only condemn as lack of 'constantia'.85 The obvious,
and in Stoic terms the only, answer, was to postu- late a period of
five years in which virtue itself could co-operate with the emperor
- a 'Neronis quinquennium'; Nero was good while Thrasea accepted
him, better than Vespasian, perhaps even than Augustus given his
early record.86 Thrasea's open disapproval came so late that Nero
had no time to deteriorate - he was tyrannus overnight. Q. Junius
Arulenus Rusticus, the biographer of Thrasea, friend both of
Thrasea and Helvidius, writing in direct competition with a life of
Helvidius by an even more extreme Stoic,87 must have felt the
problem acutely; I therefore suggest, not only that this
justification of Nero's first five years stemmed from Stoic sources
under the Flavians, but that it was given literary form, and the
phrase 'Neronis quinquennium' was coined, in Junius Rusticus' life
of Thrasea Paetus.
Little is known of the contents of this life. It was the main,
perhaps the only, charge against Junius Rusticus at his trial in
93.88 Junius had been consul in the last months of 92; the work
would seem to have been published immedi- ately before the trial,
and to have been intensely disliked by Domitian. It
83 Suet. Vesp. 15. For the contrast between Helvidius and
Thrasea in general, cf. Dio LXVI, I2, 2f.
84 Dio LXVI, I2; Suetonius (Vesp. 25) might be held to give a
different occasion for the remark; but note that he too puts it in
the senate - and connects it with 'assiduae coniura- tiones', a
phrase which is difficult to explain unless it can refer to the
activities of Helvidius and other philosophers. M. Rostovtzeff's
view (Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire2 (I957) i i6,
586 n. i6), that this statement was an answer to a 'doctrine of
adoption', is not likely. Vespasian could laugh at philosophic or
constitutional doctrines; only for personal abuse of his sons would
he bave left the senate in tears. It was against two par- ticular
and poisonous examples, Titus and Domitian, not the hereditary
principle, that the philosophers inveighed; to an upstart dynasty
the danger of such abuse was great (cf. e. g. Dio LXVI, 15, 5; P.
OXY. 2264, 43-4). An exact parallel to Helvidius' remarks, though
perhaps politer in tone, is to be seen in those of Apollonius to
Vespasian, Philostratus, Apollonius of Tyana, V, 36.
85 Tac. Hist. IV, 6. 86 Cf. Sen. de Clem. I,9, I. 87 Herennius
Senecio published a life of Helvidius; in contrast to Junius
Rusticus, he
sought no honour after the quaestorship; this formed one of the
accusations against him (Dio LXVII, I3, 2; cf. Tac. Hist. I, 2,
3).
88 Tac. Agr. 2; Suet. Dom. io; cf. Dio LXVII, I3. The date of
his trial is fixed in relation to Pliny's praetorship, in 93; A. N.
Sherwin-White, JRS XLVII (1957) 126ff.
-
The 'quinquennium Neronis' and the Stoics 57
cannot therefore be held that Junius, as a moderate man, praised
the modera- tion of Thrasea, in contrast to the excesses of later
Stoics; Domitian's reaction betrays that Junius had placed himself
suddenly and firmly in the camp of Helvidius. But the book may not
have been intended deliberately to arouse Domitian; by an
unfortunate coincidence, in the same year the biographer of
Helvidius, Herennius Senecio, was under suspicion. Domitian may
have been infuriated and frightened by a combination of
circumstances, to attack the Stoics; not the least of these would
be a vindication of Thrasea as an extremist by a pronminent and
recently honoured consular.89 The book was burnt, but it probably
survived - that of Senecio did9? - to be republished on the
accession of Nerva. Tacitus in the Agricola was uncomfortably
conscious of writing in the same genre as the Stoics about a very
different man. From his protests it can be deduced that Junius
praised the virtues of 'constantia' or 'contumacia', and 'libertas'
- freedom of speech.91 He perhaps censured 'segne otium', unless
enforced ;92 and derogatory remarks against a senate acquiescent in
the will of a tyrant would explain the censure of Tacitus and the
reaction of Domitian. A biographical eulogy, while mentioning the
hero's -rp&keL as illustrations of his virtues, need contain no
continuous narrative;93 it cannot therefore be assumed that Tacitus
used the work for the whole of his picture of Thrasea in the
Annals. But his dramatic account of the death of Thrasea will have
come from it94 - and the strange incident of 58.95 The episode has
been worked over in a way which suggests a literary source, and no
other 'amicus Thraseae' is known to have written on him. The way in
which the force of the attack on Thrasea's 'libertas' was admitted,
and his comparative inaction justified, is then significant -
indicative of attitudes under the Flavians, not of criticism in 58;
Junius recognised the awkwardness of the first five years of Nero's
reign for his picture of the Stoic hero. He had called Thrasea
'sanctissimus', a word
89 For a different view, see R. S. Rogers, Class. Phil. LV
(I960) I9ff. 90 Pliny, Ep. VII, I9. 6. 91 Tac. Agr. 42; cf. e. g.
4, 5. 'Libertas' is the Latin for 7oeppncaEL. 92 It would seem that
Herennius Senecio did: Tac. Hist. IV, 5. is in general taken
from
his biography, as E. Groag, Fleckeis. Suppl. XXIII (1897) 792,
fl. 7, saw. (6, I in contrast gives the usual Tacitean view); and
in particular the view of philosophy there expressed is opposed to
Tacitus' own in e. g. Agr. 4, 4-5. For 'otium' enforced by the
political climate, cf. Sen. De Otio, 8: 'negant nostri sapientem ad
quamlibet rem publicam accessurum'; where Seneca is arguing against
an interpretation which would add the Rome of Nero to his examples,
by claiming that all states are unworthy of the philosopher -
Seneca's own 'otium' is therefore innocent of political
disapproval.
93 Cf. e. g. J. G. C. Anderson, Introduction to Tac. Agr.
(I922), XXV. 94 H. Schiller, Nero (1872) i8. It is to be noted that
in the Agricola the most outspoken
condemnation of the Stoics and the 'ambitiosa mors' comes
immediately before the pitifully uneventful death of Agricola.
95 Cf. Syme, o. c. 298 n. 4. But it is just possible that
Thrasea's presumed 'propinquus' C. Fannius (Pliny, Ep. V, 5) is the
source.
-
58 OSWYN MURRAY
applicable only to the Stoic wise man.96 Such a man could not be
connected with a bad emperor; he must either be in retirement or
opposed.97 But if the emperor were good ?
The murder of Britannicus would have presented a problem. Titus,
who had been brought up with the boy, doubtless influenced the
official Flavian view, retailed by Josephus and Pliny the Elder.
The friends of Seneca could accept it and put the blame on Nero. An
apologist of Thrasea could neither do that, nor take the cynical
view of 'insociabile regnum'.98 But the picture of Nero's reign was
not yet fixed; it was still possible to hold the view which
Josephus records, that the murder was not proved or not known at
the time.99 Unsubstan- tiated rumours were no grounds for
condemning an otherwise satisfactory rule. This was doubtless the
claim of Thrasea himself, and his biographer might still accept it,
when other writers did not.
It is idle to speculate how much more of the story of Thrasea in
Tacitus came originally from Junius Rusticus, for most of the rest
could have been in the 'acta senatus' or other historians, and oral
tradition was available.1?? Two considerations however show that,
if the 'Neronis quinquennium' had been postulated by Junius,
Tacitus would have ignored it however much he did in fact use the
work.
Tacitus was for Nero's reign in the hands of reputable
historians, whose views for the most part he respected. None of
these would have contained a mention of a 'Neronis quinquennium',
and all contained a large number of facts which could not be
reconciled with it. On historical grounds alone, the evidence of a
minor biography might be ignored. The conflict between the bio-
graphy and the histories would have been such as to convict the
biography of being tendentious in the extreme. Nor could the
concept of a 'Neronis quin- quennium' be worked into the remarkably
complex and perceptive picture of political struggles in Nero's
early years which Tacitus finally evolved - except perhaps in the
arrangement of narrative which gives Book XIII to the quin-
quennium.
Secondly, Tacitus' attitude to the Stoics was at the least
ambivalent. As an historian he could, on occasion, not wholly rid
himself of their interpreta- tion of the facts; Domitian's reign of
terror began with the execution of Stoics, not with the earlier
trials of more important men. It was the attack on 'virtus ipsa',
which seemed to mark Nero's final descent into tyranny. Tacitus
cannot understand a joke against a Stoic; when Helvidius Priscus
crossed with the emperor Vitellius, the latter, on regaining his
temper, laughed the episode off:
96 Suet. Dom. 10, 3; Dio LXVII, 13, 2; echoed in Tacitus'
'virtutem ipsam', Ann. XVI, 2I, I. (Contra, R. Syme, Gymnasium LXIX
(I962), 24-7, who thinks Tacitus' phrase recalls Cato, not the
Stoic sage, and compares Vell. II, 35, 3, 'homo virtuti
simillimus').
97 Cf. n. 92. 98 Tac. Ann. XIII, I7, 2; cf. p. 49. ii See n. 37.
100 The suggestion of F. Munzer, Klio I (1901), 317 n. 2. is not
likely.
-
The 'quinquennium Neronis' and the Stoics 59
'nihil novi accidisse respondit quod duo senatores in re publica
dissentient: solitum se etiam Thraseae contra dicere'.'0' A
humorous reference, not per- haps in the best of taste, to the
trial of Antistius, when Vitellius had been one of the few to
oppose Thrasea. But Tacitus saw only impudence, or praise of
Thrasea, in the remark. So far he was influenced by Stoic writings
and the prevailing opinion of his time. Others, such as Pliny and
Titinius Capito,102 went further, and tried to identify themselves
with the party of the exiles; Tacitus shows more independence. The
evidence of the Agricola might be discounted, for it was written to
praise an example of 'obsequium' when the production of Stoic
encomia of 'constantia' was at its height.03 Yet the same views
appear elsewhere."04 If Tacitus praised the characters of certain
of the Stoics, and on occasion their actions, he did not approve
their general attitude. His own predilections were for other
men;105 he might indeed echo Junius in calling Thrasea 'virtus
ipsa', but he would hardly have been prepared to re- write
reputable historians, in order to give that phrase its full Stoic
meaning.
* * *
If Stoic sources under the Flavians were responsible for the
claim embodied in the phrase 'Neronis quinquennium', the problem of
the genuineness of the attribution to Trajan can be reopened. For
the Stoics who had been exiled under Domitian returned in 97 to a
city which gave them the greatest respect. Even after the initial
wave of hatred for the 'delatores' had been suppressed, their views
for the next few years were important. Corre- spondingly their
presence gave rise to feelings of guilt; hence Tacitus on the
virtues of 'obsequium' and his defiant claim that the whole senate
was guilty.'06 Even Pliny in the Panegyric lays stress on the
'obsequium' of Trajan, to Nerva, and to Domitian'l07 - by a
judicious emphasis on his part in the suppression of Saturninus - a
timely reminder that among those whose careers were not interrupted
under a tyrant was the reigning emperor. 'Obsequium', at a premium
in 97 when army commanders had to be reminded to be loyal,'08
became under Trajan a handy shelter for the conformist politician
against Stoic scorn.
101 Tac. Hist. II, g9; cf. Ann. XIV, 49, I. 102 It is not clear
how far Pliny was in danger under Domitian, as he often asserts.
For
both men cf. Syme, 0. c. 92. '103Cf. Pliny Ep. V, 5 (C.
Fannius); IV, 21, 3; VII, 30, 4f.; IX, I3, If.; cf. I, 2, 2
(Pliny's
'de ultione Helvidi'). 10" Esp. Tac. Ann. IV, 20, 5. 105 Men
more akin to Agricola, e. g. M. Lepidus (ib. IV, 20). L. Piso (ib.
VI, IO, 3) L.
Arruntius (ib. VI, 48), Volusius Saturninus (ib. XIII, 30, 2),
Memmius Regulus (ib. XIV, 47), Julius Frontinus (Agr. 17, 3). 106
Ib. 45, I. 107 Pliny, Pan. 9, 3ff.; I4.
108 Compare the third consulate of that paragon of 'obsequium',
Verginius Rufus, in 97; Nerva was fortunate in being able to appeal
for loyalty both to the emperor, and to the senate's choice.
-
6o OSWYN MURRAY
Trajan doubtless appreciated the way in which the servile senate
of Domi- tian hastened to proclaim itself as guilty as he. But he
was also at pains to please the exiles. He listened to the orations
of Dio of Prusa, honoured the man, and praised the subtlety of
thought which he claimed he could not under- stand.109 He punished
some of the 'delatores'.110Above all, he chose his friends with
care: 'tu amicos ex optimis (sc. profers), et hercule aequum est
esse eos carissimos bono principi, qui invisissimi malo fuerint
.... hos ergo provehis et ostentas quasi specimen et exemplar, quae
tibi secta vitae, quod hominum genus placeat'. 11
Among the returned exiles, there was one in particular of whom
Pliny was thinking - Junius Mauricus, the brother of Junius
Rusticus. He is found at a dinner party of Nerva, taking part in
just such an inquest on past history as 'Trajan's' remark
presupposes, and at a 'consilium' of Trajan.112 Mauricus' mordant
wit did not stop at prominent politicians; in 68 he had remarked
they might yet wish Nero back.113 He was in fact just the man to
draw attention to his martyred brother's views on Nero's reign, and
the Stoic attitude to emperors. To elicit an endorsement of
Rusticus' judgment from an emperor who wished to please, would have
been easy enough.
It seems likely that the original judgment on Nero's
quinquennium was made under the Flavians, and by a friend of
Thrasea. The occasions when such a judgment would be repeated and
endorsed by an emperor are rare. The Trajanic remark is most likely
to have been made at a time when Stoics were especially respected,
and when men such as Mauricus were still around to draw attention
to the views expressed in Stoic biographies. Thus the balance of
probabilities favours the early years of Trajan's reign for the
remark, and Trajan himself as its author.
The importance of the suggestion is this: paradoxically,
although the claim of Trajanic authorship can be vindicated, the
praise of Nero is no longer praise by Trajan, or anyone, without
ulterior motive. It is no longer strong evidence for an actual
period of good government of five years; the prime pur- pose of the
'Neronis quinquennium' was to justify Thrasea Paetus' actions under
Nero, not to show Nero as a good ruler. This judgment was one in
which Trajan acquiesced, but did not formulate; only the context of
the remark, and a certificate of sobriety,114 would show whether he
really believed it; probably not - the Stoics were worth humouring.
It is probable also that only the special circumstances of apologia
induced any Stoic to believe it, and then not until after Nero's
death. Thrasea himself certainly hoped well of Nero at the begin-
ning, and the first open sign of his displeasure was in 59. But his
disillusionment
109 Philostratus, V. S. 7; cf. Pliny, Pan. 47. IO lb. 35. "' Ib.
45. 112 Ep. IV, 22. 113 Plut. Galba, 8, 8.
114 He would have needed one: Fronto 226N; Dio LXVIII 7,4;
Julian, Caes. 3I8C; 327c; SHA Hadr. 3, 3; Sev. Alex. 39, I; Victor,
Caes. I3, io; Epit. I3, 4; 48, io.
-
The 'quinquennium Neronis' and the Stoics
was probably more gradual than his public acts suggest, and it
is not likely that he himself saw as clear a break in Nero's reign
- the view that for five years all was good, after all bad, is an
apologist's over-simplification. When Stoic attitudes hardened,
earlier history had to be rewritten to be accommoda- ted. It was
then that the legend of Thrasea the intransigent Stoic saint
began.
The 'Neronis quinquennium' is yet another example of Stoic
'Tendenz- schrift'. By focussing attention on an artificial period
of five years, it has obscured the spirit of the Neronian senate,
the real reasons for Thrasea's ap- proval, and the achievement of
Seneca. Two conscious policies, pursued in despite of the intrigues
of the emperor's mother and the emperor's lack of inter- est, are
evident in Nero's early years: the attempt to get back to what was
thought to be the Augustan constitution, and the creation of a new
court patronage of literature which would rival the circles of the
Augustan period. Both those policies must be traced to Seneca. Both
failed, and Seneca received no credit for his attempt, for it
involved xo axeoc; with his failure he forfeited his posthumous
reputation. Thrasea was luckier; he had not compromised him- self
so far, for he had accepted, not tried to initiate, a new
dispensation. More important, he had apologists who were respected:
4te N&p&wv M7oxraCvacr. pLev auvoc,at, PLat&L 8K ou.115
Thrasea may be thought optimistic; if the claims of virtue or
literary fame give long life, the memory of a happy phrase lasts
longer. Of the Stoic biographies it may be said, 'conquisitos
lectitatosque donec cum periculo parabantur: mox licentia habendi
oblivionem attulit'. The Epitomator knew nothing of these works, or
of Thrasea. But he remembered the remark of Trajan - and Junius
Mauricus.116
St. Edmund Hall, Oxford OSWYN MURRAY
I am very grateful to Mr. F. A. Lepper for discussing this
article with me in its various stages; I do not know how far he
would agree with my conclusions.
115 Dio LXI, I5, 4; cf. his remarks about flatterers immediately
before. lB6 Epit. I2, 5.
Article Contentsp. [41]p. 42p. 43p. 44p. 45p. 46p. 47p. 48p.
49p. 50p. 51p. 52p. 53p. 54p. 55p. 56p. 57p. 58p. 59p. 60p. 61
Issue Table of ContentsHistoria: Zeitschrift fur Alte
Geschichte, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Jan., 1965), pp. 1-128Volume
InformationFront MatterAlexander's 'Royal Journals' [pp. 1-12]A
Meeting of the Achaean League (Early 188 B.C.) [pp. 13-17]Primus
and Murena [pp. 18-40]The 'Quinquennium Neronis' and the Stoics
[pp. 41-61]Germanendarstellung und Zeitverstndnis bei Tacitus [pp.
62-73]Dura Rosters and the "Constitutio Antoniniana" [pp. 74-92]The
Celtic Renaissance [pp. 93-104]Ursinus und Damasus [pp.
105-128]Back Matter