Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:51:32.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observations on Cartimandua

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

David Braund
David Braund
Affiliation:
Department of Classics, University of Exeter
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Cartimandua first appears in the historical record in a.d. 51, in which year she handed Caratacus to the Romans. She was already ruler of the Brigantes: how long she had ruled is not known, but it is quite possible that she was in power even before Claudius' invasion in a.d. 43. The Brigantes seem to have been a federation: how close-knit this federation was and how far and firmly Cartimandua's authority extended over it must be matters of some doubt. Her history after a.d. 51 has often been narrated by some of the greatest students of Roman Britain: it comes as something of a surprise, therefore, to discover that this latter part of her career also raises major difficulties. For knowledge of this portion of her career, we depend almost entirely on two passages of Tacitus: Ann. xii 40 and Hist. iii 45, written first of course. The central difficulty is simple enough: how are these two passages to be related?

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 15 , November 1984 , pp. 1 - 6
Copyright
Copyright © David Braund 1984. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The best account of Cartimandua's reign remains Richmond, I. A., JRS xliv (1954), 43–52Google Scholar, though modifications are now necessary. On her early years, ibid. 43-7: note that the coinage once attributed to the Brigantes and Cartimandua, which Richmond uses, is now generally agreed to belong to the Coritani: see Frere, S. S., Britannia (revd. edn. 1978), 85Google Scholar on the coinage and for a balanced sketch of her early years. Note now also Branigan, K. (ed.), Rome and the Brigantes: the impact of Rome on Northern England (1980).Google Scholar

2 On the extent of her kingdom and its federate nature, Richmond, , op. cit. (note 1), 44–6Google Scholar; cf. Frere, , op. cit. (note 1), 94Google Scholar, observing the difficulty of controlling the whole federation. Compare the difficulties of Teuta of Ulyria in a similar situation: Dell, H. J., Historia xvi (1967), 344–58Google Scholar. Salway, P., Roman Britain (1981), 108 expresses some doubt as to whether the Brigantes were indeed a federation: it is true that this is not proven.Google Scholar

3 Mitchell, S., Liverpool Classical Monthly iii (1978), 215–19, esp. 216–17Google Scholar. His full exposition of scholarly views will not be reiterated here. It will suffice to observe that supporters of the standard view include Richmond, , op. cit. (note 1), 48–52Google Scholar, Frere, , op. cit. (note 1), 97Google Scholar, 101, 116 and 119, and Salway, , op. cit. (note 2), 133Google Scholar. But dissidents remain: the most recent treatment places Cartimandua's introduction of Vellocatus in the fifties: Webster, G., Rome Against Caratacus: the Roman campaigns in Britain a.d. 48–58 (1981), 89–90.Google Scholar

4 Mitchell, , op. cit. (note 3), esp. 218–19.Google Scholar

5 The following are the translations of Church and Brodribb. Of course, the Histories were written before the Annals: After the capture of Caratacus, Venutius of the Brigantes, as I have already mentioned, was pre-eminent in military skill; he had long been loyal to Rome and had been defended by our arms while he was united in marriage to the queen Cartimandua. Subsequently a quarrel broke out between them, followed instantly by war, and he then assumed a hostile attitude also towards us. At first, however, they simply fought against each other, and Cartimandua by cunning stratagems captured the brothers and kinsfolk of Venutius. This enraged the enemy, who were stung with shame at the prospect of falling under the dominion of a woman. The flower of their youth, picked out for war, invaded her kingdom. This we had foreseen; some cohorts were sent to her aid and a sharp contest followed, which was at first doubtful but had a satisfactory termination.

The legion under the command of Caesius Nasica fought with a similar result. For Didius, burdened with years and covered with honours, was content with acting through his officers and merely holding back the enemy.

These dissensions, and the continual rumours of civil war, raised the courage of the Britons. They were led by one Venutius, who, besides being naturally high-spirited, and hating the name of Rome, was fired by his private animosity against Queen Cartimandua. Cartimandua ruled the Brigantes in virtue of her illustrious birth; and she strengthened her throne, when, by the treacherous capture of king Caratacus, she was regarded as having given its chief distinction to the triumph of Claudius Cæsar. Then followed wealth and the self-indulgence of prosperity. Spurning her husband Venutius, she made Vellocatus, his armour-bearer, the partner of her bed and throne. By this enormity the power of her house was at once shaken to its base. On the side of the husband were the affections of the people, on that of the adulturer, the lust and savage temper of the Queen. Accordingly Venutius collected some auxiliaries, and, aided at the same time by a revolt of the Brigantes, brought Cartimandua into the utmost peril. She asked for some Roman troops, and our auxiliary infantry and cavalry, after fighting with various success, contrived to rescue the Queen from her peril. Venutius retained the kingdom, and we had the war on our hands.

6 Note also Birley, A. R., Britannia iv (1973), 181 on Nasica.Google Scholar

7 Mitchell, , op. cit. (note 3), 217–18.Google Scholar

8 See OLD s.v. ‘sperno’. Richmond, , op. cit. (note 1), 52Google Scholar is surely correct that the lowly position suggested by Tacitus’ ‘armour-bearer' is misleading. It has been suggested that Vellocatus may even have been a slave (Webster, , op. cit. (note 3), 90)Google Scholar, but if Tacitus had had any idea that Vellocatus was a slave, he would surely have made the most of it. The whole tale of Cartimandua and Venutius is told as if their relationship was simply a romantic one, as Richmond, , op. cit. (note 1), 50Google Scholar observes; there is also a hint of that favourite theme, luxury and the corruption it brings with it: cf. Syme, R., Tacitus (1958), 373, 444Google Scholar. Filippis, C. de, RSA viii (1978), 51–62Google Scholar argues that Tacitus is led by his particular prejudices to portray Cartimandua in too negative and hostile a fashion.

9 Wellesley, K. (ed.), Cornelius Tacitus– The Histories, Book III (1972)Google Scholar, 139 seems to prefer this second alternative.

10 For the criticism, Wellesley, ibid.

11 Pace Mitchell, , op. cit. (note 3), esp. 217Google Scholar, where he plays down the dissimilarities observed by Harrison, E., CQ i (1907), 305–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 See Woodman, Tony in West, David and Woodman, Tony (eds.), Creative imitation and Latin literature (1979), 143–55.Google Scholar

13 Note Tacitus' description of Venutius himself in the fifties as fidusque diu et Romanis armis defensus (Ann. xii 40. 3): Tacitus seems to have narrated this in a lost portion of his Annals.

14 On the Apocolocyntosis and the problems it raises, see Griffin, M. T., Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics (1976), 129–33. On Seneca and Britain, idem, 232.Google Scholar

15 Contra Salway, , op. cit. (note 3), 106, although Caesar had set the precedent for the invasion, he was not Claudius' ancestor, by adoption or otherwise.Google Scholar

16 Britons recur at Apoc. 3. 3 and Britain appears at Apoc. 8. 3, where Claudius' temple at Colchester is belittled.

17 See Russo, C. F., L. Annaei Senecae, Divi Claudii ἈΠŌϰŌΛŌϰΓΝΤΩΣΙΣ (5th edn., repr. 1970), 111–15.Google Scholar

18 It is possible that the allusion is only to the earlier movement among the Brigantes in a.d. 48, but this was a small matter, swiftly dealt with: Tac, Ann. xii 32. 4. Reference to the Britons as a whole may well be an ironic allusion to Caratacus. Further, Barrett, A. A., American Journ. Phil, c (1979), 538–40 argues with some plausibility that there was a significant revolt in a.d. 47 among Britons south of the Severn and Trent.Google Scholar

19 Salway, , op. cit. (note 3), 133 n. 3Google Scholar; Reed, Nicholas in Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms II: Vorträge des 10. Internationalen Limeskongresses in der Germania Inferior (1977), 41–3.Google Scholar

20 For the inscription and the circumstances of its discovery, see Petch, D. F., Journ. Chester Arch. Soc. lvii (1970–1971), 3–26Google Scholar, including the specifically epigraphical discussion of D. J. Robinson (24–6). Robinson takes the inscription to refer to civilian administration in Chester: in particular, it should be noted that both he and R. P. Wright (ibid.) are very definite that we should read FEN, not FEM, as Reed's view requires. Cf. Eleg. in Maecen. 1. 53–4, where femina, not regina, is chosen to point an attack on Cleopatra: note also feminae at Ann. xii 40. 5. Compare the royal Commagenians, who lost their kingdom but retained their royal titles: ILS 845 with Sullivan, R. D., ANRW II. 8 (1978), 796–7 and the literature he cites; cf. also PIR 1086 on Claudia Capitolina and the title regina, which she may have sported through marriage into this dynasty.Google Scholar