¹ Suet. Claud. 39.2–0.3; Tac. Ann. 13.3.2.

² Sen. Polyb. 14–16.3 on which see Dahlmann, H., ‘Zu Senecas Trostschrift an Polybius’, Hermes 71 (1936), 374–5Google Scholar. Details of relationship 15.4–16.1, cf. Smallwood, E. M., Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius and Nero (Cambridge, 1967)Google Scholar, no. 369 (ILS 212), col. II.2; 35; no. 370 (P. Lond. 1912), 11.27; no. 368 (ILS 206), lines 8; 11. Rhetorical questions and praeteritio: 14.4–5; 15.1, cf. Smallwood no. 369, col. 1.28–37.

³ Apoc. 10ff.; on 3.2 and 6.1, see CQ 32 (1982), 416–17Google Scholar.

⁴ On Ann. 4.65, see Syme, R., Tacitus (Oxford, 1958), pp. 709–10Google Scholar, suggesting another allusion at 3.26.3; Momigliano, A., Gnomon 33 (1961), 56–7Google Scholar, who, while denying a wider use of Claudian speeches by Tacitus, admits his knowledge of the speech on the Lyons Tablet and the allusion to it at Ann. 4.65; Questa, C., Studi sulle fonti degli Annales di Tacito ¹ (Roma, 1963), pp. 231–2Google Scholar, who agrees with Momigliano on the first two points but is cautious about the derivation of 4.65; Townend, G., ‘Claudius and the Digressions in Tacitus’, Rhein. Mus. 105 (1962), 358ff.Google Scholar, who thinks Tacitus shows here knowledge of the Claudian speech but through an annalistic source.

⁵ Ann. 12.11 (omission of Tiberius' sending kings to Parthia); 12.22 (omission of Lollia Paulina's marriage to Gaius).

⁶ See Nero (London, 1984, rev. 1987), p. 86Google Scholar. For the significance of book divisions in Tacitus, , Knoche, U., ‘Zur Beurteilung des Kaisers Tiberius durch Tacitus’, Gymnasium 70 (1963), 211ff.Google Scholar, especially 216–17.

⁷ For Tacitus' postponement of the Claudian summing up and the two-sided character of his portrait, Seif, K., Die Claudiusbücher in den Annalen des Tacitus (Mainz, 1973), pp. 295–8Google Scholar.

⁸ The Lyons Tablet is a prime example, see CQ 32 (1982), 404ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. The edict on the Alpine tribes (Smallwood, no. 368 = ILS 206)Google Scholar was ridiculed by Mommsen, in Hermes 4 (1870), 99ffGoogle Scholar. as characteristic of the ‘gelehrten Verkehrten auf dem Throne’ in its idiosyncratic form and expression. Schillinger-Häfele, U., ‘Das Edikt des Claudius CIL V 5050’, Hermes 95 (1967), 353ff.Google Scholar, though defending the coherence of the subject matter of the edict successfully, does not convincingly explain away the peculiarities of the opening sentence, with its anacoluthon and bewildering detail and asides, as an anticipation of the structure of the imperial sententia that will eventually result from Planta's judgement. Benner, M., The Emperor Says: Studies in the Rhetorical Style in Edicts of the Early Empire (Göteborg, 1975), pp. 100ffGoogle Scholar. suggests that the anacoluthon is the result of oral dictation: if so, that would only strengthen Tacitus' implication that Claudius was exceptional in the amount of preparation he needed in order to speak well (Ann. 13.4.2).

⁹ As argued in CQ 32 (1982), 416–17Google Scholar.

¹⁰ For earlier bibliography, see Syme, , Tacitus, p. 705 n. 6Google Scholar. After Syme, Momigliano and Questa (above n. 4) doubt that Claudius' speeches (except for that on the Lyons Tablet) are a direct, or even indirect, source for Tacitus, though Questa (p. 231) inclines towards Syme's view that Ann. 11.14 on the alphabet may go back to the Emperor's speech (which, he adds, will depend on his earlier treatise), as does Koestermann, E., Cornelius Tacitus Annalen III (Heidelberg, 1967), p. 53Google Scholar (or from the treatise). Koestermann also accepts speeches as the source for 11.22.2–6 (p. 71); 11.25.2 (p. 83); 12.24 (p. 147, with doubts about 12.23.2). Townend (above n. 4) believes that all these excursuses derive ultimately from Claudius' speeches, but that Tacitus knew them only through an annalistic source. Mehl, A., Tacitus über Kaiser Claudius (München, 1974) credits 11.14Google Scholar and 12.23 to Claudius' speeches; Boatwright, M. T., ‘Tacitus on Claudius’, CJ 80 (1984), 36ff.Google Scholar; ‘The Pomerial Extension of Augustus’, Historia 35 (1986), 17–19Google Scholar accepts such an origin for 12.23.2–24; Questa (p. 229 n. 4) prefers to trace 11.22 to the autobiography of Claudius (Suet. Claud. 41.3).

¹¹ Syme, , Tacitus, pp. 467–9Google Scholar; 518; 532; Seif (above n. 7), p. 78.

¹² Syme, , Tacitus, p. 515Google Scholar. On Claudius' book, Suet. Claud. 41.3; the grammarian Priscian accepted the usefulness of the digamma which allowed ‘v’ to be distinguished from ‘u’ (Keil, , Gramm. Lat. ii.15)Google Scholar.

¹³ The use of the word censeo for Dolabella's proposal persuades me that Furneaux, ii.29 and Koestermann (above n. 10), p. 70 were right to suppose, as against Talbert, R. J. A., The Senate of Imperial Rome (Princeton, 1984), p. 238Google Scholar, that Dolabella was giving his sententia and exercising his right to go beyond the relatio. On Tacitus' target, Seif (above n. 7), p. 94. This digression is the most extreme case of his presenting Claudian material without explicit acknowledgement (below, pp. 487–9). See also n. 43 below.

¹⁴ Seif (above n. 7), pp. 15–18; 74; 84. For the purpose of this discussion his distinction between censorial measures proper (11.13–15 and 23–5) and measures passed during the censorship (11.22 and possibly even 11.14 on the alphabet) is unimportant.

¹⁵ Vessey, D. W. T. C., ‘Thoughts on Tacitus' Portrayal of Claudius’, AJP 92 (1971), 404Google Scholar; Seif (above n. 7), p. 192; Boatwright 1984 (above n. 10), 41–3, who finds Tacitus' treatment balanced.

¹⁶ The pomerial cippi marking the new Claudian boundary proclaim, ‘auctis populi Romani finibus pomerium ampliavit terminavitque’, alluding principally to the conquest of Britain (Smallwood, no. 44 = ILS 213)Google Scholar. The pedant in Seneca's De Brevitate Vitae 13.8 emphasizes that pomerial extensions could be made only when Rome acquired territory in Italy, and he may well have been attacking Claudius' extension, see JRS 52 (1962), 109–10Google Scholar; Seneca, a Philosopher in Politics (Oxford, 1976), pp. 401–7Google Scholar; Boatwright 1986 (above n. 10), 18–19.

¹⁷ Smallwood, no. 369 (ILS 212)Google Scholar, col. 11.33–5; Syme, , Tacitus, p. 461Google Scholar; CQ 32 (1982), 406Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Syme, , Tacitus, p. 378 n. 5, 433 n. 7, 705Google Scholar; Historia Augusta Papers (Oxford, 1983), pp. 134–5Google Scholar adducing the ‘Sabine figment’ Titus Tatius as a characteristic Claudian touch; and the works cited in n. 16. Levick, B., ‘Antiquarian or Revolutionary? Claudius Caesar's Conception of his Principate’, AJP 99 (1978), 79ffGoogle Scholar. believes that Claudius took Caesar for his model but concedes that ‘it was a personal and private act’ not emphasized in public.

¹⁹ Syme, , Tacitus, p. 539Google Scholar. For the senatorial decree, see Pliny, Ep. 8.6.4ff. Weaver, P. R. C., Familia Caesaris (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 164–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar suggests that the problem was particularly likely to arise with imperial slaves an d hence was of interest to Pallas.

²⁰ Sen. Ben. 1.15.5. Seneca adds that one had to accept the beneficia of Claudius as if they were gifts from mutable fortune.

²¹ CQ 32 (1982), 405, 414Google Scholar.

²² Syme, , Tacitus, p. 707Google Scholar. The objection is made by Seif (above n. 7), pp. 229–30. Townend (above n. 4), 358–9 rejects the description of Byzantium (12.63) as Claudian.

²³ Syme, , Tacitus, p. 710Google Scholar. Note his observation (p. 196 n. 2) that in the Histories, Vitellius, a passive character, is not allowed an oration.

²⁴ ‘Tacitus' art of innuendo’, TAPA 73 (1942), 404 n. 83Google Scholar.

²⁵ Tacitus, p. 707; Mehl (above n. 10), p. 132 n. 298.

²⁶ Seif (above n. 4), pp. 195–6.

²⁷ Tacitus, pp. 316; 707; Koestermann (above n. 10), p. 150; Seif (above n. 4), pp. 199–200; Mehl (above n. 10), p. 134 n. 323.

²⁸ Note that Suetonius shows Claudius producing precedents for the adlection of freedmen ‘reprehensionem verens’ (Claud. 24).

²⁹ It is even possible, as Mehl suggests (n. 25 above), that Claudius actually gave credit to Pallas in the Senate for suggesting the adoption. Tacitus may have preferred an oblique indication of that here, saving this particular Claudian gaucherie for the later proposal about the sexual conduct of slaves (12.53) when it would have greater effect.

³⁰ It was first suggested by Lécrivain, C., ‘La juridiction fiscale d'Auguste à Dioclétian’, Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire 6 (1886), 93 n. 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³¹ Tacitus, p. 195; 378 n. 3; 705. Levick, B., Claudius (London, 1990), p. 50Google Scholar accepts that Tacitus' account of the background to the proposal came in part from Claudius' speech.

³² The first law, the Lex Servilia Caepionis of 106 B.C., probably did not return the courts to senators but instituted mixed juries of senators and equites; the later law, the Lex Servilia Glauciae, certainly reinstituted equestrian juries.

³³ Oversimplification by Claudius: Smallwood no. 369 (ILS 212), col. II. 1–4 (on which see CQ 32 (1982), 406Google Scholar; 412 n. 26) and n. 17 above; by Tacitus: Syme, , Tacitus, p. 378Google Scholar.

³⁴ For the type of jurisdiction involved, see Millar, F., ‘Some Evidence on the Meaning of Tacitus Annals XII.60’, Historic 13 (1964), 180ffGoogle Scholar. and ‘The Development of Jurisdiction by Imperial Procurators’, Historia 14 (1965), 362ff.Google Scholar; Brunt, P. A., ‘Procuratorial Jurisdiction’, Latomus 25 (1966), 461ffGoogle Scholar. Stockton, D. L., ‘Tacitus Annals 12.60: a Note’, Historia 10 (1961), 16ffGoogle Scholar. usefully summarizes earlier views.

³⁵ Millar (above n. 34). He was responding to the attempts at analysis of the passage by Stockton (above, n. 34) and Seager, R., ‘Tacitus Annals XII.60’, Historia 11 (1962), 377ffGoogle Scholar.

³⁶ I am not convinced by the attempt of Schillinger-Häfele, , ‘Gerechtigkeit für Claudius’, Historia 38 (1989), 116–17Google Scholar, based on an idea of Vittinghoff, to read a more intelligent meaning into this sentence, i.e. that historical change, such as that in the fortunes of the Allobroges (implied by this parallel), is to be accepted. For the immediate context concerns Gallic origins, and the emphasis must therefore be on Persicus' descent.

³⁷ Tacitus, p. 705. The habit is exemplified in Smallwood, no. 375 (ILS 214)Google Scholar and perhaps indirectly attested by Suetonius, (Claud. 39)Google Scholar who notes that Claudius often repeated himself in speeches on different occasions: the speeches themselves may have drawn the biographer's attention to the habit. Was L. Vitellius imitating one of Claudius' favourite expressions by way of flattery when he said ‘saepe facias’ (Suet. Vit. 2.5; cf. p. 499 below)?

³⁸ In contrast to Tacitus' criticism of Claudius' argument with regard to Cos, the editorial comment in Annals 12.60 does not take the form of criticism of what the Emperor said (for Tacitus is not here explicitly presenting his arguments), but of what he did in implementing the senatorial decree he had proposed, e.g. ‘Claudius handed over’; ‘Claudius made freedman equal to himself.’

³⁹ The point was made forcibly by Millar (above n. 34) and refined by Brunt (above n. 34) against Stockton (above n. 34) and Seager (above n. 35). See more recently, Eck, W., ‘Die Staatliche Administration des Römischen Reiches in der Hohen Kaiserzeit’, 100 Jahre Neues Gymnasium Nurenberg (1989), 214–15Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Seager (above n. 35), 378–9, while according prominence to the theme of equites, did properly emphasize that it was not the unifying theme of the passage and at least allowed that the first section was dominated by the theme of the delegation of judicial powers to anyone not covered by republican precedent.

⁴¹ Caesar, though not the most respectable precedent, does receive a mention, along with Augustus as here, in the Lyons Tablet (Smallwood 369 = ILS 212, col. 11.33) and appears in Ann. 11.25.2. On Balbus, see CQ 32 (1982), 409Google Scholar.

⁴² Dig. 1.16.9, praef.: ‘sane si fiscalis pecuniaria causa sit, quae a d procuratorem principis respicit, melius fecerit (proconsul), si abstineat.’ To Claudius the situation may have looked similar to that in Smallwood, no. 368 (ILS 206)Google Scholar where after a delator had reported to him, he allowed a personal agent, using the imperial procurators of the neighbourhood as his consilium, to settle a boundary dispute, in which imperial properties were involved, in the north of Italy (though not in a province with a senatorial governor), see Brunt (above n. 34), 465.

⁴³ Cf. the similarly abrupt and telling return to the opening point at 11.22 fin. where Claudius may have argued that the number of twenty quaestors remained after Sulla, though the senatorial monopoly of juries which had necessitated the increase ended, and should be retained now to keep the senatorial numbers from exceeding 600, thus justifying the abolition of the quaestor Gallicus and the quaestor Ostiensis (above, p. 485). Tacitus, whose target here is not Claudius, takes the last point about the maintenance of the number of quaestors and uses it to stress the open access to rich and poor men of ability to that office, precisely the point with which he opened the digression.

⁴⁴ Levick (above n. 31), pp. 50–1 now suggests that Suetonius may refer to an earlier grant of jurisdiction in the first instance, Tacitus to a later augmentation of the grant making procuratorial decisions inappellable. While the imprecise formulation of each author could be reconciled with either interpretation of the measure each reports, it can offer no support for such a distinction. Moreover, the chronology of Suetonius, Claudius 12.1–2 does not point unambiguously to an early date (as Levick admits), and the strength of Tacitus' reaction here makes it implausible that he had had occasion to treat of a grant of procuratorial jurisdiction earlier in his account. It is perhaps best not to multiply entities, especially as Tacitus' reaction is more understandable if primary jurisdiction was the issue.

⁴⁵ A. Wallace-Hadrill, reluctant as he is to admit that Suetonius as an eques had a different political stance from senators like Tacitus and Pliny, concedes that his view of the Principate lacks the tension of theirs (Suetonius (London, 1983), 110–12)Google Scholar. I owe the point about Tacitus and Domitian to Elizabeth Wright of St Hilda's College.

⁴⁶ Stroux, J., Eine Gerichtsreform des Kaisers Claudius (BGU 611), Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 8 (München, 1929)Google Scholar; Talbert (above n. 13), pp. 296–7 and Appendix 4; von Woess, F., ‘Die Oratio des Claudius über Richteralter, Prozessverschleppung und Anklägertyrannei (BGU 611)’, ZSS, Rom. Abt. 51 (1931), 336–68Google Scholar; Fraenkel, E., ‘Eine Formal des Vortrags im Senat’, Philologus 85 (1930), 355ff.Google Scholar, reprinted with additions in Kleine Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie, ii. 477–8.

⁴⁷ Stroux (above n. 46), 52ff.; von Woess (above n. 46), 359–60.

⁴⁸ A certain confusion reigns in the standard collections where Stroux is usually cited with respect and his chronological limitations adopted, but the notion of two separate speeches persists, e.g. Cavenaile, R., Corpus Papyrorum Latinarum (Wiesbaden, 1958), no. 236 ‘orationes de Claude’Google Scholar; Taubenschlag, R., JJP 6 (1952), 121–12Google Scholar. In Riccobono, FIRA ² vol. i, p. 285Google Scholar the title has been changed from Orationes in the first edition to Oratio Claudü but the papyrus is described as containing two speeches, perhaps both by Claudius. Hence Talbert (above n. 13) App. 4 who assumes there are two speeches each apparently (p. 442) dateable between 37 (or 41) and 61.

⁴⁹ Schillinger-Häfele (above n. 8) shows how the information given by the delator provides the link between the two issues of territorial boundaries and citizenship.

⁵⁰ Fraenkel (above n. 46) adduced Plautus, Epidicus 263ff. ‘immo si placebit utitor; consiliumsi non placebit, reperitote rectius’, and later examples in Horace, Epist. 1.6.67–8 and Cassius Dio 55.4.1; 55.25.4–5 (transactions in the reign of Augustus).

⁵¹ Suet. Aug. 35.4; Tib. 30–1; Pliny, Pan. 66.2–4.

⁵² von Woess (above n. 46), 344: hence not Gaius or Nero.

⁵³ Talbert (above n. 13), p. 297; Stroux (above n. 46), p. 83, ‘sieht man ihn mit dem Finger drohen.’

⁵⁴ Cf. also Tac. Ann. 12.52.3 where the attack on some poor senators for adding impudence to poverty may well come from the oratio principis just cited.

⁵⁵ Tac. Ann. 3.17.4: ‘primus sententiam rogatus Aurelius Cotta consul (nam referente Caesare magistratus eo etiam munere fungebantur) …censuit.’ The imperfect tense indicates that this was a regular practice at the time and though Tacitus clearly thought of it as a practice that no longer obtained in his day, Talbert (above n. 46), p. 263 has no reason to think it was exceptional with Tiberius. (In fact he cannot properly infer (pp. 166; 242) from Pliny, Ep.2. 11.19–20 that Trajan did not follow the practice in 100, since (ibid. 10) Trajan was presiding as consul at the time of the Marius Priscus trial). Claudius may well have done what Tiberius did in this respect.

⁵⁶ See Appendix, below, pp. 500–1.

⁵⁷ PIR ² C 1398. He held the consulship in A.D. 24 and was therefore in his late fifties. The ex-consuls were called, as in the Republic, first after the consuls-elect, and seniority was an important consideration in determining the order, see Talbert (above n. 13), pp. 41–2.

⁵⁸ See Talbert (above n. 13), pp. 252–3.

⁵⁹ For consular cooperation in the presidency of the Senate, see Talbert (above n. 13), p. 225.

⁶⁰ Senators, as in the Republic, did not rise to express simple agreement with a previous speaker when they did so silently by gesture (as in Pliny, Pan. 76.3) or by a monosyllabic sententia: see Talbert (above n. 13), p. 255, who relates the practice to the Emperor's reproach in BGU 611, col. III.21–2.

⁶¹ Ann. 12.6.3: ‘morem accommodari, prout conducat, et fore hoc quoque in iis quae mox usurpentur’, cf. 11.24.7: ‘inveterascet hoc quoque …’, on which see Syme, , Tacitus, p. 331Google Scholar; Koestermann (above n. 10), p. 118.