Classics 2480 Week 4: Claudius (41-54 CE) PDF

CLASSICS 2480 WEEK 4: CLAUDIUS (41-54) Claudius (41 - 54 CE) Claudius’ Family Relationships: ○ Was the uncle of Caligula, thus being a member of the imperial family Strange he succeeded his nephew, and also was not emperor before him due to l...

CLASSICS 2480 WEEK 4: CLAUDIUS (41-54) Claudius (41 - 54 CE) Claudius’ Family Relationships: ○ Was the uncle of Caligula, thus being a member of the imperial family Strange he succeeded his nephew, and also was not emperor before him due to linear succession ○ Was the brother of Germanicus ○ Was the son of Drusus (Tiberius’ brother) Drusus was an adopted son of Augustus and for a time was heir apparent ○ All of these relationships Claudius had made him a bonafide member of the imperial family Claudius Prior to Becoming Emperor ○ Before Claudius became emperor in 41 CE, he had toiled in obscurity He was bookish, and spent most of his time on academic pursuits as opposed to politics and military He did not want to be involved in the public life of the imperial family and the imperial family did not want him to either Possibly due to his disabilities (had a lisp, limp, and a stutter) In the ancient world, this made the Imperial family embarrassed in the public sphere as it made Claudius seem unintelligent, despite the fact that he was quite bright ○ He was raised in academic pursuits He had a tutor, who was said to be barbarian Gaul which is quite interesting ○ He was constantly mocked and derided by members of his family Specifically by his mother Antonia and his grandmother Livia ○ Though he showed glimpses of his intelligence, he seem to also spend time hiding out and pretending that he was less intelligent than he actually was This is a common mythological archetype in Roman history that may have been projected on Claudius and is seen in other examples such as Lucius Julias Brutus  (acted foolish in order to avoid execution by the last Roman King Lucius Tarquinius Superbus) This feigning of intelligence played a pivotal role in ensuring Claudius survived during the Julio-Claudian period (no one saw him as rival for emperor thus no point in harming him) ○ There were times in the earlier part of Claudius’ life prior to becoming emperor in which he demonstrated signs of intelligence There were two occasions where the equestrian class wanted Claudius to represent them: Augustus’ funeral, and Meetings about the Punishment of Sejanus Demonstrates at the very least the equestrian class of aristocrats saw him as capable and reliable Claudius also wrote books and literary works prior to becoming emperor Books about dice games, Truscan history, Carthaginian history, and some of his writings also included autobiographical information which were used by Seutonius and Tacitus in the future He spent a lot of his youth studying under the great Roman historian Livy Livy was a great chronicler of Roman history up to the Augustun age Involved in public life of the empire as it evolved under Augustus ○ Augustus’ Opinions on Claudius expressed in letters to his wife Livia Was concerned about Claudius’ appearance, limp/disabilities, and comport which may have made him unfit to be presented as a member of the imperial family However, he complimented his oratory, in other words stated he spoke very eloquently in public Augustus gave him some authority because of this by making him an Augur Augur’s were priests who read oracles (this science largely came from the Etruscans) Claudius’ studies and literary works translated quite well for this position ○ Claudius’ Survival During the Early Julio-Claudian Period Did not spend all of time in Rome Retired to Campania under the reign of Tiberius Did not want to be around Rome Claudius did not hold any positions during the reign of Tiberius, but Tiberius still allowed him to dress like a consular insignia Signified that he served as a consul in Rome but in actually he had not Might have been appeasement from Tiberius in the sense that Claudius may have wanted to hold positions but Tiberius did not allow him to Kept him quiet and helped public appearances for the imperial family ○ Claudius in Campania During his time there, Claudius developed quite the reputation for gambling and drinking Continued to receive attention from individuals and general respect from the public as a member of the imperial family  People came to him to access higher parts of the government and to Tiberius, Caligula, and other imperial family members ○ Claudius as Consul In the year 37 CE, Claduius did become a consul and shared the consularship with Caligula Caligula became emperor in 37 CE as well Recognition that Claudius would play a role in the imperial family in some way May have allowed Caligula to succeed his uncle Claudius Caligula may have been trying to keep Claudius close to him in order to eliminate him with ease in the future ○ Representations of Claudius (Statues) Centre and Right Statues: Statues of emperors are definitely idealized His relationship with other Julio-Claudians is apparent ○ Handsome, Cheekbones, Strong Chine ○ Portrayed with a respectable physical appearance Left Statue Strange hair, large eyes and ears, almost childlike Looks far less ideal Difference between statues portrays: Some portray him as a great intellectual emperor (centre and right) where as the other statues (left) portray him as a comic buffoon Similar to the contradictory historical and literary information about him Truth lies somewhere in the middle Suet. Calud. 30 Claudius’ Physical Appearance According to Seuteonius: ○ “His appearance was not lacking in authority and dignity when he was standing, sitting and particularly when he was laying down, for his frame was tall and not thin, his face was handsome, as was his white hair, and he had a full neck. However, when he started to walk his rather feeble knees would fail him and he had numerous undignified characteristics, both when he was relaxing and when he was engaged in business. His laughter was unbecoming, while his anger was a worse source of embarrassment, for he would foam at the mouth and his nose would run. Besides this, he had a speech impediment and his head twitched all the time, but especially when he made even the slightest movement. Just as his health had once been very poor, it was excellent when he was emperor, with the exception of a stomach complaint. When he suffered from that, he said, he had even considered ending his own life.” Idea that Claudius looked fine but in his behaviour he was slightly off, yet his health was perfect when he was emperor He may have misrepresented his condition prior to becoming emperor as when he ascended the throne he was “suddenly fine” Still leaves an image that Claudius was quite “clunky”  Quite contradictory once again Claudian Letters Claudius was quite eccentric as seen through his introduction of three new letters: ○ Ⅎ - digamma: consonantal v (w) ○ – Antisigma: replaces ps and bs ○ Ⱶ - sonus medius, between u and i Preoccupied himself with some rather esoteric and mundane details of things History of Clauidus’ Career as Emperor: In 37 CE, Caligula was killed ○ No clear heir as he had no children left to succeed him nor did he nominate anyone to do so ○ The Senate wanted to return to the republic 70 years had passed since the end of the Roman Republic Meant that almost no one alive at that time had been around during the Roman Republic ○ However, the Praetorian guard believed there should be an emperor They rushed into the imperial palace and found Claudius hiding behind a tapestry/curtain They forcibly brought him to the Praetorian Camp on the north-east side of Rome which was meant to house the city guard Praetorian Camp was built by Tiberius The Praetorian guard made him promise to pay each of them 15,000 sesterces Note: Soldiers usually only got 2.5 sesterces a day, making this payment a salary of multiple years The Praetorian’s Plan demonstrates the greater importance of the army Military served as a great establisher of emperors Made Claudius described as the “First of the Caesars to win the loyalty of the soldiers from bribery” Can argue about how much choice Claudius really had in the first place, as he probably did not want to be emperor and just did what the Praetorians wanted ○ Early in his reign he had to react to Caligula's legacy Rescinded Caligula’s absurd legislation Did not celebrate Caligula’s death and mourned him privately Did not condemn his memory in public Claudius likely did all these things in order to try and legitimize himself He did not have advantage of being adopted or nominated as emperor such as the previous emperors did (Tiberius and Caligula) Had to react accordingly to Caligula’s legacy in order to gain legitimacy Coin of Germanicus struck by Claudius:  One of the ways that Claudius tried to remind people of his connection to the good parts of the imperial family was striking coins that reminded them of his great ancestors: ○ Primary of these was Germanicus (man pictured above) ○ He struck this coin with the agreement of the senate as indicated by SC on the back of the coin ○ This was quite strange as emperors usually struck coins with their own faces on them ○ Demonstrated that the great qualities of his ancestors (such as Germanicus) would be presented in him and his reign as well in opposition to the reign of Caligula Coin of Claudius “for the delivery of the people” Claudius also struck coins with his own image on them with an idealized appearance Back of the coins stated “On account of the citizens having been saved” ○ Representation of Claudius taking over from Caligula and thus the people being set free from his tyrannical reign through the enlightened reign of Claudius Coin of Caligula “for the delivery of the people”  The idea of the coins with the inscription, “on account of the citizens having been saved” were not invented by Claudius Caligua himself also did this after the death of Tiberius It was something that was done after an unpopular emperor died in order to signal the beginning of a new and improved age of the people Claudius fell into this formula of legitimizing himself as well Expansion Under Claudius One of the most important ways an emperor could legitimize themselves was military experience and success Claudius did not have a military career prior to becoming emperor due to his disability and extensive academic pursuits (studying with Livy) Caligula led a failed invasion to Britain (discussed previously)  During Claudius’ reign as emperor, he had multiple military successes: ○ He oversaw the annexation of Mauritania (North Africa) ○ Responsible for entire invasion and conquest of Britain ○ Oversaw annexation of Licia and of Thrace All of this successes were ways for Claudius to legitimize his claim as emperor by showing all the good he was doing for the Roman people Claudius himself was not leading these armies during his military successes ○ He was managing these conquests through agents and generals as opposed to doing them himself ○ Quite common for emperors at this stage Claudius’ Popularity Early in His Reign : He took a policy of deferring to the senate for administrative and legislative problems in the Roman Empire ○ Not surprising as it secures the support of the senate and something many other emperors did early in their reigns to become popular ○ Claudius did indeed become popular at the beginning of his reign: “Because of this behaviour, in a short time he secured so much affection and support, that when it was reported that he had been ambushed and killed as he was travelling towards Otisa (port of Rome), the people were greatly upset and with horrible cries insistently attacked the soldiers as traitors and senators as parasites. Only stopping when first one, then the other, then numerous magistrates appeared on the Rostre (Speaking platform) to confirm that the emperor was safe and on his way home” (Suet). Claudius really much endeared himself to the Roman people However, he was still kind of an odd fellow and showed some erratic behaviour as seen in some of his court cases/judgments He had said “to rule for the party that was on the truth,” but did not give any indication which party that actually was Endeared himself further by taking on great public works around Rome (Aqua Claudia, Porta Maggiore, Portus Augusti, etc) Aqua Claudia  69km aqueduct that brought water to the city of Rome Construction beginning with Caligula to 52 CE Shows Claudius’ dedication to making the city of Rome a better place just like Augustus Porta Maggiore (c. 50 CE) As part of the great project of the Aqua Claudia, he also built this monument called the Porta Maggiore  ○ Erected at the confluence of several aqueducts ○ Built in a rusticated style Meant to look like a stylized “old monument” as opposed to a standard Roman monument seen through the stone Demonstrates Claudius’ archaized tendencies/affection for “old timey things” Large scale water projects did not end with Aqua Claudia ○ Attempted to drain the Fucine Lake (90km from Rome) as people believed its water contained malaria (because it did not drain) ○ The idea was to get water out of this lake and to give the remaining land back to the people as farming land Involved digging multiple tunnels, may have failed based on limited archaeological evidence The tunnels dug by the Romans have been destroyed by modern tunnels to drain the lake ○ Shows one of Claudius’ great weaknesses Dependence/Trust on slaves and freedman that served him, which caused him to become manipulated/pushed around (especially by freedman) Eventually made him unpopular Especially by a particularly freedman named Narcissus “When the Fucine lake caved in (when the tunnel caved in), the prominent freedman Tiberius Claudius Narcissus was severely blamed for it, for he had been in charge of the undertaking and it was thought that after spending a good deal less than he received, he had then purposefully contrive to collapse it, in order that his wrong being not be detected” (Cassious Dio). Claudius was very close to Narcissus, yet he never acknowledged or prevented any of his misdemeanors or misbehaviours which demonstrates that Claudius was being manipulated Port at Ostia (Portus Augusti, 46 CE) Ostia was the port of Rome during Antiquity ○ Claudius realized Ostia itself was insufficient to bring supplies especially grains to the  city of rome In response, he built an artificial harbor called the Portus Augusti The port itself was about 800m by 2km and about 7m deep It protected the huge grain fleet in order to supply food to the city In order to do this, Claudius sunk a ship that had brought an obelisk from Egypt to Rome during the reign of Caligula and built the lighthouse on top of it He also built two huge sea walls referred to as moles The coin on the right image issued by Nero in 64CE depicts this port Claudius also built the Port in order to prevent Rome from Flooding: ○ “Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, son of Drusus, pontifex maximus, holding tribunician power for the sixth time, elected consul for the fourth time, proclaimed emperor twelve times, father of the fatherland, by digging channels from the Tiber for the sake of the function of the port, and by sending them into the sea, freed the city from the danger of flood” ○ This type of improvement of the city and the empire as a whole was a hallmark of a great emperor Criticisms of Claudius Power of women in his life ○ Messalina Claudius’ third wife Mother of Britanicus and Octavia Brtianicus was a pretender to the throne Octavia would marry Nero, who would become emperor after Claudius ○ Agrippina the Younger Daughter of Germanicus Sister of Caligula Mother of Nero Cladilus’ fourth wife Incestious relationship as she was his niece Power of slaves and freedmen: took advantage of him/manipulated him ○ Gave them a great deal of power and was criticized by the aristocrats in Rome who felt they were better for these positions and that these people were “low born” ○ These three men became extremely wealthy, and surpassed or at least approached the status of senators: Polybius Court Archivist Was seen walking between the consuls (A freedman walking between two consuls of Rome as if they were equals showed a great error for the public display of authority in the eyes of the Roman aristocracy ) Pallas Secretary, honored with Insignia of Questers and Priders ○ Office traditionally held by senators  Narcissus Secretary, honored with Insignia of Questers and Priders Incharge of draining of the Fucine lake and embezzling money in the process Was almost elevated to a “senator-like” level when he was placed in charge of organizing the invasion of Britain (this job was highly sought after as it was highly profitable and would typically be done by a senator or aristocrat) Pedantic ○ Claudius was annoying He was smart and showed it off Messalina and Silius (Tac. Ann. 11) Messalina (Claudius’ 3rd wife) was having an affair with Silius ○ Silius is said to be the most handsome youth in rome, praised for dignity of form and force of mind ○ He proposed he and Messalina should be marry ○ Messalina decided that when Claudius left town to perform sacrifices in Ostia they would marry ○ They set up a full wedding ceremony for themselves ○ It was discovered by the freedman Claudius worked most closely, including Narcissus ○ It was then decided that Claudius’ mistresses would tell him about this ○ When he found out he called Narcissus and said: “I am not now going to bring an adultery charge. Don’t reclaim house, slaves and fortune’s other trappings – let Silius have those, but he must return the wife and destroy the marriage documents.” (Tac. Ann. 11.30) ○ This was quite humiliating, as Claudius’ spouse ran away in broad daylight with Silius but he did nothing to attack Silius ○ Despite having multiple mistresses, he simply requested to have Messalina back because he “is in love with her,” which demonstrates her immense influence over him ○ Claudius’ leniency was deeply criticized because Silius was a consul elect, and thus running off with the emperor’s wife was tantamount to treason in an attempt to overthrow the government ○ Narcissus' concern with the influence that Messalina had over Claudius was such that he engineered it so that she would not be able to defend herself in front of Claudius in order for Claudius to not have the chance to forgive her ○ Claudius was kept so much in the dark that after Messalina died (killed by a guard or assisted suicide) he asked “why she did not show up for diner” Seems to be that not only was Claudius quite absent minded, but that he could not deal with political situations especially when they interlinked with his household Claudius’ Succession:  In the wake of Messalina’s death, Claudius was convinced to marry his niece Agrippina the younger (not to be confused with Agrippina who was the wife of Germanicus) ○ Agrippina the younger (evil) was also the mother of Nero, who would later become emperor ○ Nero was adopted by Claudius and was elevated to heir apparent over his own biological son Britanicus ○ Claudius recognized the deficiencies of Nero (who was a little crazy) and the good qualities of his son Britanicus, and yet was still subject to the influence of others in his life (such as Agrippina the younger) in that he still made Nero the heir to the empire ○ In terms of securing his legacy, Claudius made a mistake here as will seen during Nero’s reign Lyon Tablet (sometimes Lyons Tablet) Discovered in Lyon (Ancient Lugdunum, Birthplace of Claudius) in 1528 Verbatim copy of speech delivered in the senate in 48 CE by emperor Caludius himself ○ The speech was about admitting Gauls into the Roman Senate (Claudius argued Gauls should be allowed to hold senate positions) Document can be compared to Cf. Tac. Ann. 11.23-25 which records the same speech ○ These documents allow us to compare something that Claudius actually did to a way in which he was portrayed in a later source (Tacitus’ Annals) ○ Also demonstrates how our perception of Claudius may be manipulated based on histronian’s biases and own agendas Discussion Questions What is Claudius’ argument (in Lyon Tablet and Tacitus)? Argues that aristocratic Gauls should be admitted into the senate/ pursue office in Rome. ○ How much is the actual thrust of this speech changed in Tactius’ version compared to the original in the Lyon Tablet & what does that tell us about tacitus? What were the arguments against Claudius? ○ What was Claudius arguing against? What were the objections to them being incorporated into the Senate in the first place? Which version is better? ○ Historiographical point of view, context, ways in which they are delivered How does this affect our view of Claudius?  ○ How do the differences between the two versions influence our idea of Claudius Claudius’Argument Tacitus’ Version of Claudius’Argument ○ Claudius begins by stating that his own family was of Sabine origin (still Italian and very close to Roman but not actually Roman) During the early expansion of Rome, Claudius’ family had arrived in Rome and were called the Claudiee; they had been admitted immediately to the Patricians (aristocratic class of Rome) He also notes that all of Italy was now part of the Roman state whereas it was not previously ○ New people were always being incorporated into the empire After the social war, all of Italy south of the Po River had been incorporated in Rome ○ Incorporation led to peace The more inclusion there is, the more security there is ○ Gives examples of great foreigners who were brought into Rome The Balby who were from Spain Balbus the elder served as consul once Balbus the younger celebrated a triumph in Rome They had been allies of the emperor Augustus Men from Narminescal (Southern France along Mediterranean) had already been included into the Senate This is likely the area from which Tacitus himself came Tacitus thus prolly had some bias to this point of Claudius’ speech ○ Claudius goes on to argue that exclusion of peoples by namely the Athenians and Lacedaemonians (Spartans) led to their downfall ○ Also states the First King of Rome Romulus also included other foreigners especially the Sabines ○ Notes that foreigners had become Kings of Romes (Numa and the Tarquins) in the past and even slaves had been elevated to high positions throughout Roman history ○ Also notes that former enemy peoples of Rome were now admitted to the senate ○ States that the wars against the Gauls were short and they were a peaceful people (About 100 years since Julius Caesar conquered Gaul) ○ The Gauls could bring wealth to the state Inference: State may have been in economic turmoil and needed them for support ○ Argues that everything old was once new Lyon Tablet ○ Rome has always been evolving from the very beginning Kings, foreign kings, Numa and Sabine, Tarquinius Priscus (Greek Father, Etruscian Mother) etc Foreign Kings portion takes about 1/3rd of the entire tablet and goes on and on about Tarquinius Priscus who had been exiled from his own  nation and arrived in Rome to take power and was great for the state ○ Goes on to argue that there are all sorts of new things in the empire and the government continues to evolve, and notes new offices such as dictators, tribunes of the plebs, board of ten, military tribunes with consular power throughout Roman history Seems kind of irrelevant because the argument is about introducing new people not offices ○ Augustus and Tiberius incorporated new peoples Historical evidence ○ Searches for good examples of great foreigners in the senate Senators from French Vienna were quite productive and reliable Skilucious Esteinus, friend of Claudius ○ Gauls already supply equestrians/knight Might as well let them into senate then ○ The Gallic youth Shows off Gallic youth who are present during the speech and were even promising ○ Gauls were peaceful during German wars Note: Tacitus’ version of the speech is quite shorter than the Lyon Tablet even as we have it preserved ○ Lyon Tablet supposedly rambles ○ Oratory presentations tend to be more verbose and elaborate (in the Lyon Tablet) than literary works which are often direct to the point (such as Tacitus’ works) ○ We might prefer Claudius’ Lyon Tablet speech because we get an idea of what Claudius was really like as opposed to just his points Counterarguments to Claudius Tacitus ○ Natives were good enough ○ Some compromise has already been made Already some senators from outside of Italy so why add more? ○ Too few offices for Latins already Already fierce competition ○ Gauls fought for a long time against Julius Caesar 10 year war Lyon tablet (inferred) ○ Fear of new things Which version is better? Lyon Tablet ○ Rambles a bit ○ Provides specific examples ○ Personal notes Tacitus ○ General examples  ○ Direct to the point Kenneth Welsely: Historian in 1954 ○ Argues Claudian version is far superior to Tacitus’ version ○ Addresses criticisms made by scholars about Claudius’ speech recent to his time ○ Criticisms of the Lyon Tablet and Welsely’s Rebuttals: Passage of the Kings being far too long: We don’t know how much time Claudius actually had Might be a small part of the speech because we are unsure if we have access to the whole thing Dependant upon Livy According to Welsely, Livy’s history was the accepted history of Rome Livy’s history was accurate to Roman perceptions of their own origin story, thus historical accuracy wasnt of concern Latin was Poor Welsely denied this Subject matter was irrelevant Welsely Argues that passage about the poverty of Tarquinius Priscus’ eastern father and contrasting it with the western wealthy Gauls was a useful rhetorical device Priscus became king despite his background, the Gauls wanted to join the senate and they deserved it just as much (they had wealth, experience, merit etc) Unnamed senator whose discussed in line 54 is a useless passage Welsely argues that the identity of the senator doesn't matter, because it emphasizes that Claudius wanted the senate to make a policy decision as opposed to an individual one Weird Rhetorical Asides and Questions weaken its argument in line 60-62 Criticism that goes back to Momsin, whose famous for doing this sort of criticism all the time Welsely sees this as a theatrical entry to the Galic youths, creating a sense of drama and immediacy, thus being a useful element and advancing the argument in a particular time and place/public setting ○ Welsely’s Criticism of Tacitus’Account: Objects to the way Tacitus creates his argument Tacitus lists these objections (discussed above) to Claudius’ proposal apparently out of thin air and then has Claudius respond to them individually (straw-man argument) Wesley notes “it is difficult to imagine a more arbitrary and willfully literary device” ○ Tacitus’ version is quite artificial Suppression of the Claudian style in Tacitus’speech, as well as his omissions and addition of arguments from/to the original are not faithful nor clear (do not improve speech)  Omissions require Tacitus to cram in replies to the objections he makes in 1123 so that the arguments are actually not as well made as they are in the Lyon tablet Extensive defence of freedman in Tacitus’ version is an implied criticism of Claudius and this is not something Cluadius actually talked about (too influenced by freedman) Might be Tacitus’ own thoughts Inclusion of the Balby, (especially Balbus the younger) in Tacitus’ version is quite unlikely to have actually happened because the Balby were not popular Overplayed the argument of the short Gallic war that no one really had interest in (makes Claudius look pedantic) Introduces arguments about money which are not present in the original, thereby debasing the argument by making it about economics as opposed to about policy and ideology Neither speech is better than the other, rather they are both products of the medium by which they are delivered ○ Claudius’speech in the Lyon tablet was meant to be more of a performance in public including things like asides Makes it slightly flawed in a way ○ Tacitus’ version takes out all the smaller details, eliminates specific arguments in favour of general arguments Takes out the rambling Displays Tacitus’ purpose in his writings as well He has a tendency towards the didactic, writing history as education for learning Thereby, Tacitus gives us a message through history relevant to his contemporary audience (he has his own opinions on the Gauls in Roman Society and he expresses that) Tacitus’ version can be criticized in that he adds new material to the speech despite probably having the original Dishonest, but making it relative to his own world Brings out things which are relevant to his audience Takes out Claduius’ pedantic nature Clearly has his own agenda Ultimately, comparing these speeches shows how our literary sources do ont always portray the emperor’s accurately ○ Imagine if we only had Tacitus’ account, we would have a very different opinion about Claudius Apocolocyntosis (Pumpkinification) Written by Seneca the Younger soon after the death of Claudius ○ Lucius Annaeus Seneca (Full name) Born in Cordoba, Spain Exiled by Claudius in 41 CE to Corsica for adultery  with Caligula’s sister Julia Livilla Recalled in 49 CE to become the tutor and advisor to Nero Result of the influence from Agrippina the Younger who was Nero’s mother Nero killed her in 59 CE When Nero became emperor, Seneca was not only his tutor but also his very close advisor along with Burrus Guided Nero for the first 8 years of his reign until he was forced to commit suicide by Nero The Apocolocyntosis was written after Claudius’ death (54 CE) The Title Name was preserved by Dio Cassius ○ Means Pumpkinification, which is a pun on the word Apotheosis (to deify) ○ It was common practice to deify emperors, but Seneca was implying with this pun that Claudius should be turned into a pumpkin as opposed to a deity Menippean satire ○ Combination of prose and poetry The plot of the Apocolocyntosis ○ Claudius dies and arrives at Mount Olympus to become a god ○ He meets Hercules ○ Hercules agrees to represent him as a lawyer for in front of the gods for a trial to determine whether or not Claudius deserves to become a god ○ Hercules is not that smart, thus Claudius loses in the trial and is forced down to Hades to meet all the people he’s killed ○ He’s forced to act as the secretary or clerk for one of his freedman forever Quite ironic as this was something he was sort of criticized for when he was alive Story includes many criticisms of Claudius’ behavior and represents the hostility of the sources that recorded his life Apocolocyntosis (Pumpkinification) Presents a Caricature of Claudius ○ “But Hercules, the first glimpse he got, was really much taken aback, although not all the monsters in the world could frighten him; when he saw this new kind of object, with its extraordinary gait, and the voice of no terrestrial beast, but such as you might hear in the leviathans of the deep, hoarse and inarticulate, he thought his thirteenth labour had come upon him. When he looked closer, the thing seemed to be a kind of man.” (Apoc. 5) Hercules seeing Claudius for the first time^ His disabilities/poor articulation are being played up for comedic purposes “Even the great hero Hercules could not withstand Claudius” Criticisms of Claudius’ policies and Behaviour: ○ “This man, my lords, who looks as though he could not hurt a fly, used to chop off heads as easily as a dog sits down.” (Apoc. 10) Deified Augustus speaking about Claudius^  Claudius while emperor had supposed murderous tendencies Killed 35 senators, over 300 knights, two sons in law, father in law (Apius Sellanus), Julia daughter of Drusus, Julia daughter of Germanicus, his daughter’s father in law Crassus Frugi, his daughter’s mother in law Frugi, and Messalina (his 3rd wife) Claudius’ ferocity and murders ○ Here (in the underworld) were found Gaius Silius consul elect, Juncus the ex-praetor, Sextus Traulus, M. Helvius, Trogus, Cotta, Vettius Valens, Fabius, Roman Knights whom Narcissus had ordered for execution. In the midst of this chanting company was Mnester the mime, whom Claudius for honour's sake had made shorter by a head. The news was soon blown about that Claudius had come: to Messalina they throng: first his freedmen, Polybius, Myron, Harpocras, Amphaeus, Pheronactus, all sent before him by Claudius that he might not be unattended anywhere; next two prefects, Justus Catonius and Rufrius Pollio; then his friends, Saturninus, Lusius and Pedo Pompeius and Lupus and Celer Asinius, these of consular rank; last came his brother's daughter, his sister's daughter, sons-in-law, fathers and mothers-in-law, the whole family in fact. In a body they came to meet Claudius; and when Claudius saw them, he exclaimed, "Friends everywhere, on my word! How came you all here?" To this Pedo Pompeius answered, "What, cruel man? How came we here? Who but you sent us, you, the murderer of all the friends that ever you had? To court with you! I'll show you where their lordships sit." (Apoc. 13) Passage demonstrates his caricature of being clueless Killed the wife of a senator and ate dinner with him, then asked where is wife was Shows his cluelessness behind his mechanism of government as well Policies (c.f. Lyon tablet) ○ Clotho (one of the Fates) replied: "Upon my word, I did wish to give him another hour or two, until he should make Roman citizens of the half dozen who are still outsiders. (He made up his mind, you know, to see the whole world in the toga, Greeks, Gauls, Spaniards, Britons, and all.) But since it is your pleasure to leave a few foreigners for seed, and since you command me, so be it." In other words, passage is saying that if Claudius was given enough time there wouldn't be any foreigners left because he would make everyone Roman Seneca showing sympathy to impress Nero Claudius’ character ○ At this point Claudius flared up, and expressed his wrath with as big a growl as he could manage. What he said nobody understood; as a matter of fact, he was ordering my lady of Fever to be taken away, and making that sign with his trembling hand (which was always steady enough for that, if for nothing else) by which he used to decapitate men. He had ordered her head to be chopped off. For all the notice the others took of him, they might have been his own freedmen. (Apoc. 6) Freedman ignored Claudius and did whatever they wanted while he was ordering executions and became so angry that he could not speak straight The Reign of Nero as a New Beginning  I wish to place on record the proceedings in heaven October 13 last (54 CE), of the new year which begins this auspicious age. It shall be done without malice or favour. This is the truth. Ask if you like how I know it? To begin with, I am not bound to please you with my answer. Who will compel me? I know the same day made me free, which was the last day for him who made the proverb true--One must be born either a Pharaoh or a fool. (Apoc. 1) ○ Overt political statement ○ Seneca is saying that he is now free to say the truth now that Claudius is dead which is through the Apocolocyntosis ○ States that the world had been enslaved under Claudius and now would be set free in an auspicious age by Nero Rejoicing at Claudius’ death, praising Nero Mercury asks the Fates to kill Claudius: ○ “Do let the astrologers tell the truth for once; since he became emperor, they have never let a year pass, never a month, without laying him out for his burial (astrologers always said Claudius was going to die). Yet it is no wonder if they are wrong, and no one knows his hour. Nobody ever believed he was really quite born (talking about his disabilities). Do what has to be done: Kill him, and let a better man rule in an empty court (allow Nero to take over, empty court also means emptied of everybody due to how many people Claudius killed)." (Apoc. 2) Praise for Nero Mercury is speaking to Clotho in response to the “let a better man rule” passage “Like me in face and lovely grace, like me in voice and song, He'll bid the laws at length speak out that have been dumb so long (Claudius was not running the courts properly), Will give unto the weary world years prosperous and bright...... so Caesar doth arise, So Nero shows his face to Rome before the people's eyes, His bright and shining countenance illumines all the air, While down upon his graceful neck fall rippling waves of hair.” (Apoc. 4) ○ Physical appearance and legal activity is praised for Nero at the dawn of this new age Other Criticisms of Claudius’ Reign in the Apocolocyntosis: Criticism of his love of dice Criticism his of Literary interests Criticism of his Legal wranglings General Mockery is epitomized in the version of Claudius’ death presented in the Apocolocyntosis: ○ “The last words he was heard to speak into this world were these, when he made a great noise with that end of him which talks easiest, he cried out oh dear oh dear, I think I made a mess of myself, whether he did or no, I can't say, but certain it is that he made a mess of everything” A big fart and him soiling himself Conclusions of Claudius: Apocolocyntosis: ○ Unflattering traits of Claudius are magnified and exaggerated Serve a satirical purpose ○ Seneca seems to confirm stereotypes but cannot be relied on to validate them ○ It is not truth, it is perception and amplification Claudius is without a doubt a controversial emperor ○ He was much smarter than was given credit for ○ Criticized for being impressionable Overly fond of the women in his life Easily manipulated/Class Blind as he thought his freedman were just as worthy of running the empire as the senators out of naivety ○ Seems to have been violent and ruthless at time Could have been due to other’s influence, fear, and decline in his later years ○ Still conducted himself quite well at times as seen by his many military successes and public works ○ Seems he did not want to be emperor but was forced into the position Thus made many people do a lot of the work for him and his decline in later years may be attributed to this as well (he was fed up with his position)