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 support@jstor.org.

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