¹ Of the vast literature on the Lyons Tablet, I list here those works that I have used most extensively and will cite most often (in abbreviated form): Fabia, P.¹. La Table Claudienne de Lyon (Lyon, 1929);Google Scholar P. Fabia², ‘A propos de la Table Claudienne’, REA 33 (1931), 118 ff.; 225 ff.; E. Liechtenhan, ‘Quelques réflexions sur la Table Claudienne et Tac., Ann. XI, 23 et 24’, REL24(1946), 198 ff.; K. Wellesley, ‘Can you trust Tacitus?’, Greece andRomeN.S. 1 (1954), 13ff.; F. Vittinghoff, ‘Zur Rede des Kaisers Claudius über die Aufnahme von “Galliern” in den römischen Senat’, Hermes 82 (1954), 348 ff.; N. P. Miller, ‘The Claudian Tablet and Tacitus: a Reconsideration’, Rhein. Mus. N. F. 99 (1956), 304 ff; Syme, R., Tacitus (Oxford, 1958);Google Scholar U. Schillinger-Häfelc ‘Claudius und Tacitus über die Aufnahme von Galliern in den Senat’, Historia 14 (1965), 443 ff.: D. Flach, ‘Die Rede des Claudius de iure honorum Gallis dando’, Hermes 101 (1973), 313 ff.; Vivo, A. De, Tacito e Claudio (Naples, 1980). I cite the Tablet according to H. Dessau, Inscriptions Latinae Selectae no. 212, Tacitus' chapters according to the second edition (1965) of E. Koestermann's Teubner text.Google Scholar

² The phrase ius adipiscendorum honorum suggests the latus clavus, as in Annals 14. 50, where it seems to denote a privilege regularly granted to large numbers by the Princeps. It is not, however, incompatible with the adiection because that would make those enrolled in the Senate eligible to stand for offices higher than the rank at which they are admitted. Adiection suits the phrase ius senatorum better, and the fact that the request was made during Claudius' censorship favours that hypothesis, as the latus clavus could be sought at any time. The primores, probably members of the concilium Galliarum (as Fabia suggested), would be men of mature years who might not want to stand for the quaestorship. We know from inscriptions that Claudius adlected some Italians inter tribunicios (CIL 5. 3117; 10. 6520): the primores could have been admitted to that rank or quaestorian rank. I have ignored the thesis, which still recurs from time to time, that the privilege requested was a legal right that some particular category of provincial citizens lacked. The refutation of this view by H. J. Cunningham in CQ 8 (1914), 132 ff.; 282 ff. and 9 (1915), 57 ff. and by H. Last in JRS 24 (1934), 58 ff. seems to me conclusive. Under the Empire no Roman citizen of non-senatorial origins had a right to stand for office: he had to receive the privilege from the Princeps.

³ The origin of the objections given by Tacitus was pointed out by Liechtenhan, and is generally accepted. The exception is Wellesley pp. 25–7, who thinks that Tacitus invented a speech for Claudius to match the objections which were actually raised in the Senate after the imperial oration and were recorded in the acta senatus. But, as Miller p. 313 notes, the hostile arguments as Tacitus gives them actually fit the speech on the Tablet better than the Tacitean version. For another example of such inference by Tacitus, see Syme, R., Tacitus (Oxford, 1958), p. 707, who points out that at Ann. 12. 25 he attributes to the audience remarks actually made by Claudius himself in his speech on Nero's adoption, according to Suetonius, Claudius 39.Google Scholar

⁴ The best exposition of this view is by Miller, who seems to regard these literary considerations as a total explanation of the discrepancies.

⁵ These points are well made by Wellesley p. 16 n. 1 and De Vivo p. 29.

⁶ Ann. 12. 61.

⁷ Suet. Claudius 41. 3; cf. Tacitus' words at Ann. 13. 3: ‘nee in Claudio, quotiens meditate dissereret, elegantiam requireres’. For elegantia as referring principally to choice of words, see D. M. Last-R. M. Ogilvie, ‘Claudius and Livy’, Latomus 17 (1958), 486 ff.

⁸ Suet. Claudius 21. 5: ‘immixtis interdum frigidis et arcessitis iocis’.

⁹ Lollia Paulina: Ann. 12. 22. 2. The facts about Gaius’ grants of the latus clavus are given by Dio at 59. 9. 5. Though Tacitus leaves out Claudius’ references to Augustus and Tiberius, he could have allowed the opposition to mention Gaius, had he wished to strengthen it. Caesar's senatorial adlections are also not signalled explicitly by Tacitus and may well have been omitted by Claudius for diplomatic reasons (Syme, Tacitus, p 705): the references to the Balbi and to the enfranchisement of the Transpadani at Ann. 11. 24. 3 relate implicitly to Caesar.

¹⁰ Ann. 3.40 ff. Wellesley p. 23 n. 2 notes that Livy, Per. 138 records disturbances while Drusus took the census which Claudius omits in his speech. If Tacitus knew of them, this could be another example of connivance with the Emperor.

¹¹ Ann. 11. 23. 4 and 24. 5. Though Miller p. 311 seems to think that this may have been in Claudius' speech, it is difficult to see where it would naturally come, as the section on Gaul and the Gauls seems to begin in Col. II. 10.

¹² Hist. 3. 72. See Skutsch, O. in JRS 68 (1978), 93–4 proposing to read ‘qui <capto> Capitolioet arce Romana’ at Ann. 11. 23. 4.+Capitolioet+arce+Romana’+at+Ann.+11.+23.+4.>Google Scholar

¹³ Syme, Tacitus, p. 624, noting other examples of this technique in Tacitus.

¹⁴ Vittinghoff p. 354 suggests that the objection to Veneti and Insubres voiced in 11. 23. 3 may accurately reflect sentiments in some senatorial circles in Claudius’ time, but a plea in favour of preferential status exclusively for the ancient nobility and families from Latium seems unlikely in this period. His other suggestion, that Tacitus is reducing the opposition's case to absurdity, seems more plausible. This view is argued fully by De Vivo, pp. 38 ff., 89.

¹⁵ Ann. 12. 25 (see above, n. 3).

¹⁶ Carcopino, J., Points de vue sur I'imperialisme romain (Paris, 1934), pp. 159 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁷ De Vivo, especially pp. 23, 30–1; 100 ff. See my review of this book forthcoming in JRS. The picture of Claudius he adopts emanates principally from A. Momigliano, Claudius: the Emperor and his achievement² (1961), who saw Claudius' move as ‘another stage in the transformation of the Senate and the discrediting of the old senatorial families’ (p. 45).

¹⁸ The time indicated is the beginning of peace under Augustus; see Syme, Tacitus, p. 804.

¹⁹ On these jokes, see recently Huss, W., ‘Eine scherzhafte Bemerkung des Kaisers Claudius’,Historia 29 (1980), 250 ff., and below, pp. 411, 417.Google Scholar

²⁰ Ogilvie, R. M., A Commentary on Livy Books 1–5 (Oxford, 1965), pp. 536–7 suggests that Livian terminology from that speech (4. 47) made its way, via Claudius' Gallic speech, to Suetonius Tib. 1 gens Claudia in patricias cooptata. Syme, Tacitus, p. 707 suggests that Tacitus transferred the reference to his ancestry from Claudius' adoption speech to the Gallic one. See below C (1).Google Scholar

²¹ A point made forcibly by U. Schillinger-Häfele, 450. Thus we pass from the introduction of families into the Senate to the giving of citizenship to the Transpadanes; from the incorporation of provincials in Roman colonies (where they acquired the citizenship) to the entry of the Balbi and men from Gallia Narbonensis (presumably into the Senate, though ‘transivisse’ is deliberately vague); from Romulus’ enfranchisement of former enemies to foreign kings and freedmen magistrates.

²² As Schillinger-Häfele (note above) points out, the way Tacitus combines the issues is an implicit rebuttal of that suggestion. The simul in the opening sentence about Attus Clausus is picked up in the vague phrases ‘transferendo hue’, ‘transivisse’, which do not specify if the citizenship or membership of the Senate is meant.

²³ Although Claudius' chronological sequence appears to follow the sequence in Canuleius' speech in Livy, Claudius does not make the distinction that Canuleius does between precedents for admitting new blood (Livy 4. 3. 9 ff.; 4. 4. 6–9) and precedents for new institutions (Livy 4. 4. 1–4). Tacitus simply omits the latter as irrelevant.

²⁴ That Claudius was making the connection is held by Fabia¹, pp. 81–2; Miller, p. 309; Vittinghoff pp. 357 and 366; Wellesley, p. 17. Seneca exploited maliciously in the Apocolocyntosis 3. 2 (see below p. 417) the juxtaposition in the speech of the allusion to Britain and the mention of the citizenship.

²⁵ The allusion to wealth in Tacitus (Ann. 11. 24. 6), so strongly criticized by Wellesley p. 31, is implicit in Claudius' emphasis on his predecessor's admission of boni viri et locupletes to the Senate and his plea on behalf of select provincials 'si modo ornare curiam poterint’. There was, after all, a property qualification for senators under the Empire which must be one factor in the Emperor's mind at this point.

²⁶ Claudius' line of argument, as interpreted here, makes it imperative to take ‘omnem florem ubique coloniarum ac municipiorum’ as a reference to the upper crust in towns all over Italy, and colonial’ et municipia often denotes the towns of Italy (e.g. Ann. 3. 55. 3; ILS 214 (Claudius himself)). The clearest exposition of this interpretation is in Last, JRS 24 (1934), 59 ff.; see now Schillinger-Häfele pp. 445–6. The problem is that, given the expansion of the Senate in the Republic and the inclusion of the Balbi and other provincials by Caesar and the Triumvirs (especially if Claudius dealt with some of these topics), 'sane novo more’ seems a strange way to characterize a pan-Italian policy by Augustus. Syme in PBSR 14 (1938), pp. 6–8, found the solution in Claudius' preference for rhetoric over veracity; a less satisfactory solution is to take the phrase 'sane novo more’ as ironic (so Sherwin-White, , Roman Citizenship² (Oxford, 1973), p. 238). Claudius' point was that Augustus and Tiberius completed a long process with a new and conscious policy, and we do know that at least the Paeligni contributed their first senator under Augustus (ILS 932). Claudius promises to maintain that policy, to the extent of protecting Italian priority, but he points out that worthy provincials should not be rejected out of hand, and in what follows he shows this has already happened, for senators from Narbonensis already sit in the Curia.Google Scholar

²⁷ Roman Citizenship², p. 239; Sherwin-White ignores the sequence of thought, and in fact cites the sentences of the imperial text in reverse (Col. II. 6–8): he does not seem to be aware that the Emperor is here making a concession.

²⁸ A. Garzetti, From Tiberius to the Antonines (Eng. trans. 1974), p. 131.

²⁹ De Vivo, p. 30: see n. 17 above.

³⁰ Fabia¹, pp. 143–4; Fabia², pp. 243; 255.

³¹ Mommsen, Staatsrecht III3, p. 962. Wellesley pp. 22, 24 insists that Claudius kept to Republican convention here and that there was a real debate afterwards. But that is to disregard the evidence of Tacitus and of Claudius himself.

³² BGU no 611, col. III. 10 ff. Note how, according to Tacitus Ann. 11. 4, Cornelius Scipio managed to imply his dissent by simply stating his agreement with those before him: that was the nearest he could come to free speech when political charges were involved.

³³ Smallwood, E. M., Documents illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius and Nero(Cambridge, 1967), nos, 407, 368 (ILS 206).Google Scholar

³⁴ Suet. Claudius 24. 1, although Claudius here also took the practical step of having the freedman's son he wished to favour adopted by a Roman knight.

³⁵ The Emperor and the Roman World (London, 1977), pp. 289 ff.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ovid, Tristia 4. 10. 27 ff.; ILS 6998 (Hadrian), both offers of the latus clavus. Adlection: Pliny Ep. 1. 14. 5 (Vespasian). Even earlier, Caesar the Dictator offered senatorial rank to the philosopher Sextius, which he refused (Seneca, Ep. 98. 13). Vespasian's policy: Suetonius Vesp.9.2.

³⁷ Laet, S.-J. de, ‘Claude et la romanisation de la Gaule septentrionale’, Melanges Piganiol (Paris, 1966), 951Google Scholar–61; G. Walser, ‘Die Strassenbau-Tätigkeit von Kaiser Claudius', Historia 29(1980), 459 ff. For his general interest in Gaul, Grenier, A., Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, vol. 3 (1937), pp. 521 ff.Google Scholar

³⁸ Claudius was gone from Rome for six months but spent only sixteen days in Britain (Suet.Claudius 17. 2; Dio 60. 23. 1). Suetonius mentions his journey through Gaul.

³⁹ On Cologne, Tacitus Ann. 12. 27. For Vienne, Gaius is the alternative possibility, for the elevation in rank took place after the first consulship of Valerius Asiaticus in 35. As Claudius mentions the elevation in his speech (Col. II. 16–7), he seems the more obvious candidate. See Sherwin-White, Roman Citizenship², p. 244, but some scholars think that the elevation of Augusta Trevirorum is Tiberian.

⁴⁰ De Laet (above n. 37), p. 955.

⁴¹ The Roman Citizenship², p. 243.

⁴² Tacitus Ann. 13.50, a proposal to abolish all indirect taxes as a ‘pulcherrimum donum generi mortalium’.

⁴³ The Roman Citizenship², pp. 243–7. With regard to Seneca's remark in De Beneficiis 6. 19.2, he remarks that ‘it was fashionable in these times to discuss such possibilities’ but urges that the ‘magnificence of the conception’ savours more of Nero since what is known of Claudius' actual citizenship grants does not fit this conception.

⁴⁴ The interpretation of Seneca here proposed was briefly suggested in Seneca, a Philosopher in Politics (Oxford, 1976), p. 250.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Weinreich, O., Senecas Apolocyntosis (Berlin, 1923), pp. 100;Google Scholar 102 n. 1; Russo, C., Divi Claudii’AФοκολοκύντωρτς⁴ (Florence, 1964), p. 99; Seneca, a Philosopher in Politics, pp. 133; 217 n. 1.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ H. Dahlmann, ‘Zu Senecas Trostschrift an Polybius’, Hermes 71 (1936), 374–5.

⁴⁷ The acta publica, which would contain at least a summary of the imperial oration (PlinyPan. 75. 1–2, Ep. 5. 13. 8), should have been available in the two Roman colonies on Corsica (Sen. Cons. Helv. 7. 9, Pliny H.N. 3. 80).

⁴⁸ On Annals 4. 65, see Syme, Tacitus, p. 709; G. Townend, ‘Claudius and the Digressions in Tacitus’, Rhein. Mus. 105 (1962), 358 ff.

⁴⁹ It is unlikely that, as De Vivo suggests (pp. 100 ff.), Tacitus was attacking the philhellenism of Trajan and Hadrian when he stressed the suitability of Gallic and Spanish provincials, while condemning the Greek Empires. The references to Balbus and the Greek Empires need not, as we saw (pp. 406–7), be Tacitean additions, and the peroration of Tacitus’ version of the speech suggests anything but a desire to halt the process.

⁵⁰ Martin, R. H., Tacitus (London, 1981), p. 150 notes the inconcinnity.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Ann. 11.25; 12.37; 12.63; 13.3.2.