² ‘Aeduos fratres consanguineosque saepe numero a senatu appellatos’: B.G. 1.33.2. Caesar repeats the fact on several occasions (cf. B.G. 1.36.5; 43.6; 44.9). It may well be that he stressed the brotherhood of the Aedui and Romans so as to help justify his campaign against Ariovistus, who was himself a rex socius et amicus populi Romani (cf. Sherwin-White, A. N., Racial Prejudice in Imperial Rome (1967), p. 14;Google ScholarGelzer, M., Caesar: Politician and Statesman (trans. 1968), p. 107); this campaign provides the immediate context for Caesar's repetition of their titles.Google Scholar

³ Cic. ad Fam. 7.10.4; ad Att. 1.19.2; Diod. 5.25.1; Strabo 4, p. 192; Plut. Caes. 26.3; Tac. Ann. 11.25.1–2; Eumenius, pro inst. schol. 4; Paneg. Lat. 8.21.2; 5.2.4; 5.3.1.

⁴ R-E Bd. I (1894), col. 475.

⁵ Strabo 4, p. 192 comes closest: . However, no causal connection may be imputed to these two facts: Strabo simply lists them. Cf. Tac. Ann. 11.25.1–2.

⁶ I find that Haskins, C. E. (ed.), Lucani Pharsalia (1887), p. 25,Google Scholar and Hirschfeld, O., Kleine Schriften (1913), pp. 186–208Google Scholar (= SPAW 9 (1897), pp. 1099–1119) and again in CIL XIII (1899), p. 400, long ago imputed this confusion to Lucan contra Birt, Th., Rh.M. 51 (1896), p. 523,Google Scholar whom Jullian, C., Histoire de la Gaule, III (1909), p. 143 n. 7 follows, without argument. The case contra Birt is strengthened by Tacitus who tells us that the Aedui were the only Gauls called fratres (soli Gallorum: Attn. 11.25.2), against which Birt urges Lucan's ausi: he suggests that the Arverni claimed to be Rome's fratres but were recognized as such neither by Rome nor by Tacitus. Paneg. Lat. 5.2.4–3.1 also stresses the singular nature of the Aeduan relationship with Rome (primi omnium in this passage need be no more than a general reference to Aeduan ascendancy). Haskins and Hirschfeld are obliged to argue further that the attribution of a Trojan origin to the Arverni in the writings of Sidonius Apollinaris is to be explained by his reading Lucan and compounding his ‘error’; linguistic similarities make it plain that Sidonius was, at the very least, aware of Lucan 1.427–8 (Sid. Ap. Pan. 7.39–41; Ep. 7.7.2), but Ep. 2.2.19 suggests that he was perhaps not alone in his belief. There seems to be no evidence of any tribal link between the Aedui and Arverni that might solve this problem: their only relationship seems to have been one of hostility and rivalry (Caes. B. G. 1.31.3).Google Scholar

C. Jullian, as we have seen, was familiar with this dispute and assigned the Aedui a Trojan legend as well as the Arverni (op. cit., p. 28 n. 2). Even so, later scholars by and large remained in the dark (Bickermann, E. J., C.Ph. 47 (1952), 73–6Google Scholar is a notable exception): most significantly perhaps, Holmes, T. Rice, who in his Caesar's Conquest of Gaul (2nd edn., 1911), p. 58, saw the title fratres as a reward for fidelity (a view for which there is no ancient authority); the same author's De Bello Gallico (1914) shows no advance.Google Scholar

⁷ Caes. B.G. 1.43.6: docebat etiam, quam veteres quamque iustae necessitudinis ipsis cum Aeduis intercederent … Diod. 5.25.1 refers to a ,

⁸ Compare Lampsacus' claim to with Massilia through Phocaea (Ditt. Syll.³ 591). Note also the of Lystra and Pisidian Antioch, both colonies of Augustus (OGIS 536). Cf. Robert, L., Hellenica, I (1940), pp. 56–9; II (1946), pp. 145–6; BCH 101 (1977), pp. 130 n. 219.Google Scholar

A recently discovered treaty between Aphrodisias, Cibyra, and Tabae contains the notion of : perhaps the result of their being founded by three brothers (I must thank Joyce Reynolds for making this text available to me; it was excavated by K. T. Erim of New York University with grants from the National Geographic Society; see Joyce Reynolds Aphrodisias and Rome (forthcoming)). Compare the idea that the Jews and Spartans were because of their common descent from Abraham (Jos. A.J. 12.226; Momigliano, A., Prime Linee della Tradizione Maccabaica (1931, repr. 1968), Ch. 4).Google Scholar

See also Walbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius, vol. II (1967), p. 52,Google Scholar on Pol. 7.9.4, with the references there cited: add D. Musti Sull' idea di in iscrizioni greche, ASNP series 2. 32 (1963), pp. 224–39. Rather later, cf. Amm. Marc. 17.5.3 and 10 with JOnge, P. de, Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus XVII (1976), pp. 134–5.Google Scholar In general, cf. Bickermann, E. J., Origines Gentium, C.Ph. 47 (1952), pp. 65–81.Google Scholar

In the West, in Gaul itself, we should note the fraternitas between the Suessiones and the Remi (Caes. B.G. 2.3.5); compare the Cimbri and Teutones (Plut. Mar. 24.2–4) and note Massilia's role in Ditt. Syll.³ 591.

⁹ On Ammianus' sources for this section and the views of modern scholars see Jonge, P. de, Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus XV 6–13 (1953, repr. 1972), pp. 47–9.Google Scholar

¹⁰ On the so-called ius honorum see Sherwin-White, A. N., The Roman Citizenship (2nd edn., 1973), pp. 234–6,Google Scholar 239, 265–7. Also Syme, R., Tacitus (1958), I, pp. 459–60.Google Scholar

¹¹ See Momigliano, A., Claudius: the Emperor and his Achievement (repr. 1961), pp. 1–19.Google Scholar

¹² Tac. Ann. 12.58.2 with Furneaux ad loc.; Suet. Claud. 25.3, on which see Holleaux, M., Rome, la Grèce et les monarchies hellenistiques (1935, repr. 1969), pp. 46 ff.Google Scholar

¹³ C. F. Russo, Divi Claudii (5th edn., repr. 1967) ad loc. plausibly suggests that this refers to Marcus Antonius; for a fuller discussion see Ball, A. P., The Satire of Seneca on the Apotheosis of Claudius (1902), p. 181. We are perhaps expected to recall that M. Antonius was Claudius' maternal grandfather and received honours from him (Suet.Claud. 11.3). On Claudius and Lugdunum see Syme Tacitus, p. 460 n. 6.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The detail about Licinus cleverly portends Claudius' supposed slavery to his own freedmen when emperor.

¹⁵ Ball, pp. 195–219; Russo, pp. 86–107.

¹⁶ Augustus has clearly become a divine senator as well as a god (Apoc. 10). For a useful guide to the literature on deification in the Apocolocyntosis and other relevant material down to that date see Coffey, M., Lustrum 6 (1961), pp. 239–71.Google ScholarGriffin, M., Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics (1976), p. 129 is sensible on this topic. Our author clearly distinguishes the status of one deified from that of a god at Apoc. 9.5: ‘censeo uti divus Claudius ex hac die deus sit ita uti ante eum quis optimo iure factus sit…’.Google Scholar

¹⁷ There is no reason to suppose that such a position would have any legal basis: the present argument can tell us nothing about a ius honorum.

¹⁸ Tac. Ann. 11.23–5; cf. ILS 212.

¹⁹ Tac. Ann. 11.23.2–7.

²⁰ So, correctly, Griffin, Seneca, p. 130.

²¹ Suet. Claud. 28–9.1; icf. Apoc. 15.2. That Claudius is termed a Saturnalicius princeps is partly to be explained in this connection: at the Saturnalia slaves became masters and masters slaves. The same joke, used in the same connection, is reported by Dio (60.19.3). Claudius is also said to have restored the fifth day to the Saturnalia (Dio 60.25.8).

²² Suet. Claud. 33.2; cf. Apoc. 14.4–15.1. Further, the Saturnalia was the only period when dicing was strictly legal: another aspect of Saturnalicius princeps (cf. OCD ²s. v. Dicing (Moritz)).

²³ Suet. Claud. 15; 29.1; Dio 60.28.6;

²⁴ Strabo 4, p. 192; Caes. B.G. 7.75.2; cf. 1. 10.5; 7. 64. 4; Plin. N. H. 4. 107.

²⁵ On Claudius' fondess for citing Homer cf. Suet. Claud. 42. 1.

²⁶ Suet. Claud. 25.3; Tac. Ann. 11.25. 1–2; Ann. 11.24; ILS 212; Lucan 1.427–8.