Nathaniel Katz, University of Texas at Austin
Josephus describes how Milonia Caesonia was assassinated along with her daughter and on the same day as her husband, Caligula (Jos. AJ 19.190-200, cf. Dio 59.29.7; Suet. Cal. 59). This paper refines our understanding of Josephus’ technique and the interregnum he describes by reading his description of Caesonia’s death as an allusion to Calpurnia’s reaction to the death of her husband, Caesar.
Caesonia addressed her final words to her husband, saying “nothing other than her blame of Gaius, since he did not consider her trustworthy when she had often warned him” (Jos. AJ 19.195: οὐδὲν ἓτερον ἢ κατάμεμψις τοῦ Γαΐου, ὡς πιθανὴν οὐ σχόντος πολλάκις προηγορευκυῖαν αὐτήν). Though they do not discuss this particular passage, Pagán and Wiseman have shown how often Josephus alludes to the Ides of March in his account of 41 CE. Readers primed by those other allusions would here think of Calpurnia’s warnings to Caesar before his death (App. BC 2.115; Dio 44.17.1; Nic.Dam. 83; Plut. Caes. 63f; Suet. Caes. 81.3).
The difference between Caesonia and Calpurnia is, of course, that Calpurnia survived her husband. It was Calpurnia’s fate that was the norm: Caesonia was one of only three imperial wives to die alongside their husbands, and the others were in the chaotic third century (Varner). Wiseman and others have noted Josephus’ discomfort with Caesonia’s death, at least in part a reaction born of his connection to her niece Domitia. The allusion to Calpurnia allows Josephus to justify his unease over Caesonia’s death without explicitly criticizing the conspirators he otherwise lionizes.
Recognizing the unusual nature of Caesonia’s death also clarifies the course of the interregnum. The scholarly consensus is that Josephus’ timeline must be wrong: had the conspirators waited until night to kill Caesonia, she would have fled (Barrett; Scherberich; Wiseman). If precedent suggested she was an unlikely target, however, her decision to mourn rather than flee is unsurprising. Vindicating Josephus’ timeline raises the question why the conspirators decided to kill Caesonia at that moment. An escalation at that point fits the broader arc of their actions during the interregnum. As the interregnum dragged on, some in the senate hoped to negotiate with Claudius and sent him an embassy (Jos. AJ 19.229). To forestall any compromise short of restoring the republic, some conspirators grew increasingly extreme, even demanding Claudius’ head (Jos. AJ 19.258). Exterminating Caligula’s family was another way to forestall compromise, as was the conspirators’ method: making the executioner a relative of the praetorian prefect Clemens implicated him (Jos. AJ 191; Levick). That, the conspirators probably hoped, would prevent him from siding with Claudius.
Caesonia’s death was not unremarkable collateral damage but an unusual escalation. Josephus’ allusion shows how the conspirators went from being like Caesar’s killers to surpassing them in an act of brutal and ultimately futile violence.