The Wolf and the Hare: Boudica’s Political Bodies in

Tacitus and Dio

Caitlin Gillespie

Classical World, Volume 108, Number 3, Spring 2015, pp. 403-429 (Article)

Published by Johns Hopkins University Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/clw.2015.0043

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/581809

[ Access provided at 11 Apr 2020 23:34 GMT with no institutional affiliation ]

The Wolf and the Hare:
Boudica’s Political Bodies in Tacitus and Dio

CAITLIN Gillespie

ABSTRACT: This article analyzes how Tacitus and Dio use the con-
cept of exemplarity in their narratives of Boudica’s revolt in order to
present the queen as a complex model of female leadership. Tacitus’
Boudica assimilates herself to positive Roman models from Livy;
Dio’s Boudica separates herself from Herodotean anti-models, as
well as from the imperial women of Rome. In her condemnation of
Nero, Dio’s Boudica criticizes the populace for succumbing to the
influence of a negative model of leadership. Exempla contribute to
each author’s characterization of Boudica; a comparative reading re-
veals significant differences in each author’s position on the efficacy
of exempla in historiography.

I. Introduction

Boudica,1 queen of the Iceni, is memorialized by both Tacitus and Dio

as a powerful model of barbarian female leadership in early imperial his-
tory. In Tacitus’ Annals, she advances to the center of the battlefield, her
body beaten, her ravaged daughters before her; in Dio’s Roman History,
she mounts a podium, eyes glancing fiercely, as she grasps a spear and in-
spires awe in all who behold her.2 Boudica’s larger-than-life appearance
is unique to each author; however, both show how her body, whether
beaten by Roman soldiers or bedecked in foreign finery, becomes a po-
litical body, an emblem of barbarian strength and fortitude. Her words
similarly captivate her audience, as she condemns the effeminacy of the
enemy, defends the superiority of her cause, and challenges her men to
unite in the contest for libertas from the lustful tyrant, Rome.
Both authors valorize the provincial queen and evoke sympathy
for her plight. Tacitus draws a subtle contrast between her and similar

1
On the Celtic spelling of Boudica’s name, see K. Jackson, “Queen Boudicca?”
Britannia 10 (1979) 55.
2
Tac. Ann. 14.35.1; Tac. Ag. 16.1. D.C. 62.2.4.

Classical World, vol. 108, no. 2 (2015) Pp.403–429

404 Classical World

figures of the Roman past, whereas Dio accentuates her rage against cur-
rent negative models of female leadership. Each author manipulates the
figure of Boudica to reveal overarching concerns on the use of historical
models in their works. Boudica is especially suited for this role due to
her unusual position as a female military leader; her discourse may be
persuasive, but her death and the failure of her revolt render her effec-
tiveness as a dux femina ambiguous.
Past scholarship has capitalized on Boudica’s appearance, actions, and
words as part of a larger discourse on Roman imperialism and expansion-
ist policies.3 Although the historicity of Boudica’s speeches is doubtful, she
speaks and acts with authority, emphasizing the overarching importance
of libertas. Her focus on this ideal echoes concerns voiced by other foreign
leaders.4 Largely absent from comparative analyses of Boudica with other
leaders, however, is her citation of historical models. Boudica’s revolt pro-
vides an opportunity for an exemplary moment in military achievement,
and Boudica’s appearances imply an expectation that she will become an
emblem of freedom herself. This article considers Boudica’s episodes in
Tacitus and Dio as each author’s reflection upon the efficacy of the models
provided by historiography. Boudica provides an effective figure for Tac-
itus and Dio to comment upon the ideal of libertas during the principate
on the whole and during the reign of Nero in particular; in the end, both
authors question the flexibility of past exempla to adequately reflect the
notion of libertas in an imperial context.
Tacitus and Dio provide the literary basis for numerous biographies
of Boudica and for arguments over the details and historicity of the events
of 60 or 61 C.E.5 Each author presents Boudica’s sex as a central facet

3
See E. Adler, “Boudica’s Speeches in Tacitus and Dio,” CW 101 (2008) 173 n.2;
3 and 4 for bibliography.
4
See Adler (above, n.3) 123 n.20 and 21 for bibliography on the historicity of
speeches in Tacitus, as well as potential sources for the Boudica episode; see 142 n.8 on
Dio’s sources.
5
The three accounts of Boudica’s revolt are Tacitus (Ag. 14.3–16.2 and Ann. 14.29–
39) and Xiphilinus’ epitome of Dio (D.C. 62.1–12). Book numbers and text of Dio are
those of U. P. Boissevain, ed., Cassii Dionis Cocceiani Historiarum Romanarum quae
supersunt. 5 vols (Berlin 1895–1931). For biographies of Boudica, see D. R. Dudley and
G. Webster, The Rebellion of Boudicca (New York 1962); I. Andrews, Boudicca’s Revolt
(London 1972); M. J. Trow and T. Trow, Boudicca: The Warrior Queen (Stroud 2003); R.
Hunt, Queen Boudicca’s Battle of Britain (Kent 2003); R. Hingley and C. Unwin, Boudica:
Iron Age Warrior Queen (London 2005); M. Aldhouse-Green, Boudica Britannia: Rebel,
War-leader and Queen (Harlow 2006); V. Collingridge, Boudica: The Life of Britain’s Leg-
endary Warrior Queen (Woodstock and New York 2006); M. Johnson, Boudicca (Bristol
 Gillespie | The Wolf and the Hare 405

of her identity. In Dio’s account, the fact that a woman led the revolt
is the greatest cause of shame for the Romans.6 Tacitus is more elabo-
rate: in his Agricola, he introduces Boudica as the queen of the Iceni and
leader of a universal uprising. Her command is clear, and its justification
requires only a parenthetical explanation from Tacitus: the Britons do not
consider sex when they grant imperium.7 In the Annals, Tacitus’ Boudica
strengthens this statement, declaring that Britons customarily wage war
under a woman.8 Boudica’s status as a foreign dux femina with imperium
is initially comparable to that of Cartimandua, the queen of the Brigantes;
however, her fight for freedom and her resistance to servitium and licentia
set her apart.9 The respect of her people aligns her with Veleda, the female

2012). For the year of the revolt, see C. M. Bulst, “The Revolt of Queen Boudicca in A.D.
60,” Historia 10.4 (1961) 496–509; R. Syme, Tacitus. 2 vols. (Oxford 1958) 2.765–68;
Dudley and Webster (above) 144–45; J. C. Overbeck, “Tacitus and Dio on Boudicca’s
Rebellion,” AJP 90.2 (1969) 143–44. On the causes of the revolt, see S. L. Dyson, “Native
Revolts in the Roman Empire,” Historia 20.2 (1971) 259–60; G. Webster, Boudicca: The
British Revolt Against Rome A.D. 60 (London 1978) 86–89.
6
D.C. 62.1.1.
7
Tac. Ag. 16.1: His atque talibus in vicem instincti, Boudicca generis regii femina
duce (neque enim sexum in imperiis discernunt) sumpsere universi bellum (“Instigated by
these and other such things in turn, with Boudica as their leader, a woman of a royal family
[for they do not consider sex in choosing leaders], all together they rose up in war”). Text
of Tacitus’ Agricola is that of E. Koestermann, ed., P. Cornelii Taciti libri qui supersunt:
Tom. II. Fasc. 2. Germania, Agricola, Dialogus de Oratoribus (Stuttgart 1957). All trans-
lations of Latin and Greek are my own unless otherwise noted.
8
Tac. Ann. 14.35.1: Boudicca curru filias prae se vehens, ut quamque nationem
accesserat, solitum quidem Britannis feminarum ductu bellare testabatur (“Boudica, rid-
ing in a chariot, her daughters before her, as she approached each tribe declared that it was
customary for Britons to fight under the leadership of women”). Text of Tacitus’ Annals
is that of H. P. Heubner, ed., P. Cornelii Taciti libri qui supersunt: Tom. I. Ab Excessu
Divi Augusti (Stuttgart 1994). R. Shaw-Smith (“Two Notes on Tacitus, Annals,” CQ 47.1
[1997] 327 emends quidem to quippe to suggest that Tacitus gives this comment, provid-
ing a clear parallel to the Agricola passage (above, n.7); Boudica’s oratio obliqua includes
only what follows.
9
Tacitus implicitly contrasts Boudica with Cartimandua, queen of the Brigantes (Tac.
Ag. 31.4; Hist. 3.45; Ann. 12.36.1, 12.40.3). See D. Braund (Ruling Roman Britain. Kings,
Queens, Governors and Emperors from Julius Caesar to Agricola [London and New York
1996] 118–46) on Boudica and Cartimandua, in which Cartimandua is characterized by
her lust, cunning, and servitium to Rome that leads her to betray Caratacus to the Romans.
Braund (132) states: “Where Tacitus’ Cartimandua is a tool of servitium and proponent of
licentia, his Boudica is a victim both of servitium under Rome and of Roman licentia, against
which she is champion of barbarian and specifically British libertas. In that sense, the two
women are presented as opposites: while Cartimandua is shown very much as a queen, Bou-
dica is presented not as a queen, but as a woman. Accordingly, in Tacitus’ narrative, Boudica
escapes the very negative associations of queenship and gains the accolade which Tacitus is
406 Classical World

prophetess of the Bructeri tribe who gains auctoritas through predicting

the success of the revolt against the Romans in 69/70 C.E.10 Veleda does
not lead the troops, but Tacitus notes that it is common for German tribes
to attribute prophetic powers to women and even to revere them as divin-
ities.11 Veleda, like Boudica, has the trust of a people, whereas Cartiman-
dua loses respect and is replaced by Venutius.
Boudica’s leadership is confirmed through her speeches to her troops,
which have few parallels in female discourse in either Tacitus or Dio;
rather, she celebrates virtus and maligns the Romans for luxury and ava-
rice in the manner of non-Roman men.12 Adler has recently drawn together
the threads of scholarship that discuss the denigration of non-Romans in
imperial and colonial discourse; in focusing on the speeches of enemies in
Roman historiography, Adler challenges this perspective, “by testing the
degree to which ancient historians of Rome were capable of valorizing for-
eigners and presenting criticisms of their own society.”13 Barbarian leaders
including Calgacus display admirable Roman virtus, among other positive
qualities, and Caratacus sounds like a Roman general in expounding upon
the choice between freedom and eternal slavery.14

prepared to bestow upon women who are driven to resist oppression and to provide men
with an example of how they too should behave.” For further comparisons, see I. A. Rich-
mond, “Queen Cartimandua,” JRS 44 (1954) 43–52; Aldhouse-Green (above, n.5) 120–43;
Johnson (above, n.5) 57–74; P. Keegan, “Boudica, Cartimandua, Messalina and Agrippina
the Younger. Independent Women of Power and the Gendered Rhetoric of Roman History,”
Ancient History: Resources for Teachers. 34.2 (2005) 99–148.
10
For Boudica as a dux femina, see Tac. Ann. 14.35.1; Tac. Ag. 31.4; F. S. L’Hoir,
“Tacitus and Women’s Usurpation of Power,” CW 88.1 (1994) 7–11.
11
Tac. Hist. 4.61: ea virgo nationis Bructerae late imperitabat, vetere apud Ger-
manos more, quo plerasque feminarum fatidicas et augescente superstitio arbitrantur
deas. (“This maiden of the tribe of the Bructeri was in command far and wide, by an
ancient custom among the Germans through which many women are considered prophets
and, as superstition increased, goddesses”). Text of Tacitus’ Histories is that of K. Halm,
ed., P. Cornelii Taciti libri qui supersunt: Tom. II. Historiarum Libri (Stuttgart 1959). See
also Tac. Germ. 8 on the veneration of Veleda, among other women, as a divinity.
12
E. Adler (“Cassius Dio’s Livia and the Conspiracy of Cinna Magnus,” GRBS 51
[2011] 133–54) compares Boudica’s oration to that of Livia on the conspiracy of Cinna Mag-
nus (D.C. 55.16.2–21.4), arguing (135): “In these two addresses, Dio appears to demon-
strate some regard for influential women; all the same, he calls their claims into question.
This suggests that Dio had a particular way of characterizing women in power—one that
was partly indebted to valorizing strong females, but simultaneously undermining them.”
13
E. Adler, Valorizing the Barbarians: Enemy Speeches in Roman Historiography
(Austin 2011) 2. For Adler’s discussion of Boudica, see 117–61.
14
Tac. Ann. 12.34. E. Koestermann (Cornelius Tacitus: Annalen. 4 vols. Heidelberg
[1963–1968] 3.165) suggests a comparison between the tenor of the speech of Caratacus
 Gillespie | The Wolf and the Hare 407

In the Boudica episodes, both Boudica and Suetonius Paulinus pres-

ent adlocutiones to their troops in order to rouse them to valorous ac-
tion in battle. Paulinus, the governor of Britain, is portrayed as a rival
to Corbulo in Armenia in both his military achievements and popular
opinion; although vastly outnumbered, his Romans achieve success and
completely defeat Boudica and her men.15 In his speech, Tacitus’ Pauli-
nus challenges his men to prove their manliness and win gloria on the
battlefield (Tac. Ann. 14.36.2), while Dio’s Paulinus claims that the sin-
gle battle against Boudica will provide a model for all the Roman sol-
diers to emulate, and that it will terrify the enemy into submission (D.C.
62.10.1–2). The separate emphases of Paulinus’ speeches point towards
one difference in the presentation of the concept of exemplarity in Tac-
itus and Dio: where Tacitus’ Paulinus speaks generally about the ideal
of virtus, Dio’s Paulinus draws attention to how the current moment
may affect non-Roman and Roman audiences in the present and the
future. Thus while Tacitus’ general highlights a masculine ideal without
implying that others will recall this moment and imitate it, Dio creates
a moment intended for emulation. In the speeches of Boudica, these is-
sues are expanded. Tacitus’ Boudica alludes to early moments in Roman
history that provided similar opportunities for virtus, but Dio’s Boudica
creates an analogy between her situation and that of Rome in the time
of Nero, critiquing the lack of positive imperial models and commenting
upon the effect this lack has had on the entire state.16
Prior to an examination of Boudica’s citation of prior models, it is
important to note that the definition of an exemplum may vary accord-
ing to author and context. In general, an exemplum includes both the

and those of Arminius (Ann. 1.59, 2.15), Boudica (Ann. 14.35), and Calgacus (Ag. 30).
On the idea that Tacitus presents the Britons, Calgacus in particular, as having a similar
ideology and ideals as Rome, S. H. Rutledge (“Tacitus in Tartan: Textual Colonization
and Expansionist Discourse in the Agricola,” Helios 27 [2000] 75) argues that Tacitus’
Agricola “turns the alien and distant land of Roman Britain into a Roman space, with a
Roman identity, whose people share and embrace Roman values and ideology with vary-
ing results.” See also M. A. Giua (“Paesaggio, natura, ambiente come elementi strutturali
nela storiografia di Tacito,” ANRW II 33.4 [1991] 2897) on the notion of freedom in the
speech of Calgacus, and C. Clarke (“An Island Nation: Re-reading Tacitus’ Agricola,” JRS
91 [2001] 94–112) esp. 105–106 on Calgacus’ virtus and other aspects of Romanness.
15
Tac. Ann. 14.29.2.
16
M. Roberts, “The Revolt of Boudicca (Tacitus, Annals 14.29–39) and the Asser-
tion of Libertas in Neronian Rome,” AJP 109 (1988) 127. Adler (above, n.3) 184 com-
pares the choice between freedom and slavery to Thrasea Paetus and the Stoic resistance
to the principate.
408 Classical World

individual and an action and usually has a restrictive function: the model
becomes a symbol of a specific virtue or vice for his or her actions on a
single occasion.17 The exemplum recalls past models and looks to solidify
societal values in the present and future; as Kraus contends, the model
is deployed in historiography “as a means of understanding, negotiating,
and representing past and present alike.”18 Exempla may respond to or
cite their own past models and provide illustrative figures that readers
may choose either to follow or avoid.19 In addition, exempla may have a
specific narrative utility; for example, Joshel argues that Livy connects his
female models Lucretia and Verginia to the development of the state.20
Tacitus’ use of exempla is arguably different from that of Livy. As
Luce argues, the purpose of Tacitus’ inclusion and praise of exempla is
not primarily to set up models for emulation in the manner of Livy, for
Tacitus conceives of history as an act of commemoration rather than a
work intended to provide “moral uplift.”21 Tacitus’ models cannot be
condensed to simple lessons or stereotypes of good or bad behavior for
readers to imitate or avoid; according to Luce, they must be read with
Tacitus’ primary audience of senators in mind.22 Feldherr relates the
presentation of exempla closely to the act of writing history, arguing
that the freedom with which history is written necessarily influences
the presentation of models within that history. According to Feldherr,
Livy’s emblems of libertas correspond to the state of civic freedom in
the res publica at the time of composition; where Livy’s models “cannot

17
S. Bell, “Introduction: Role Models in the Roman World,” in S. Bell and I. L.
Hansen, eds., Role Models in the Roman World: Identity and Assimilation (Ann Arbor
2008) 4.
18
C. S. Kraus, “From Exempla to Exemplar? Writing History around the Emperor
in Imperial Rome,” in J. Edmondson, S. Mason, and J. Rives, eds., Flavius Josephus and
Flavian Rome (Oxford 2005) 186. See Bell (above, n.17) 6 for exemplum as “a model for
imitation which provides contemporary society with lessons that are informed by the past,
inscribed into public memory, and catalyzed through replication.” See also M. Roller, “The
Exemplary Past in Roman Historiography and Culture,” in A. Feldherr, ed., The Cam-
bridge Companion to Roman History (Cambridge 2009) 214–30.
19
Livy Praef. 10; on which see J. Chaplin, Livy’s Exemplary Rome (Oxford 2000)
1–5.
20
S. R. Joshel, “The Body Female and the Body Politic: Livy’s Lucretia and Verginia,”
in A. Richlin, ed., Pornography and Representation in Greece and Rome (Oxford 1992)
112–130.
21
T. J. Luce, “Tacitus on ‘history’s highest function’: praecipuum munus annalium
(Ann. 3.65),” ANRW 2.33.4 (1991) 2907.
22
Luce (above, n.21) 2911.
 Gillespie | The Wolf and the Hare 409

apply to individuals outside the context of the state,” Tacitus’ exempla

have “nothing to do with state-building.”23 Tacitus, aware that his free-
dom of speech is a recent acquisition after the tyranny of Domitian,24
commemorates models within families and other smaller social units,
whose personal expressions of libertas need not connect to a state of
civic freedom.25 This is not to say that Tacitus does not commemorate
models that may provide moral inspiration, such as the Stoic Thrasea
Paetus, but these senatorial models are few.26 Tacitus looks to less ob-
vious places for models of specific virtues that may or may not inspire
imitation.
The principles of exemplarity and the differences in Tacitus’ repre-
sentation of potential exempla are instructive for the analysis of Boud-
ica. This leader replicates the Roman ideal of virtus and, paradoxically,
becomes a more persuasive model of this virtue than her male enemies.
Tacitus demonstrates how prior models may be useful for understand-
ing and analyzing Boudica’s situation, suggesting variability in exempla
without naming Boudica as one herself. In the Annals, Boudica is a no-
table example of situational variability in exemplary discourse, proving
that past exempla do not remain static; Tacitus’ narrative draws upon
similar situations of the past, while creating a new characterization of
an imperial-age barbarian freedom fighter.27 By contrast, in Dio’s history,
Boudica’s citation of models is explicit, and her comparisons suggest a
desire to become a new kind of model. Dio’s Boudica highlights failures
in morality and leadership among the imperial family, drawing upon ste-
reotypical vices for her speech. She provides a counterpoint model of
leadership to the emperor and his family and an internal commentator
on the surrounding narrative of current affairs at Rome. The authors

23
A. Feldherr, Spectacle and Society in Livy’s History (Berkeley 1998) 218.
24
Cf. Tac. Ag. 1–3.
25
Feldherr (above, n.23) 218 uses Tac. Hist. 1.1.3 as one such example.
26
W. Turpin (“Tacitus, Stoic exempla, and the praecipuum munus annalium,” CA
27.2 [2008] 365) suggests that Stoic exempla in Tacitus provide guides to moral instruc-
tion including less obvious models, noting that the Stoics “ . . . realized that people did
not have to be perfect, or even generally admirable, to offer inspiration; barbarians, people
of low social standing, and people who had not always behaved well could be even more
inspiring than the more obvious role models.”
27
See R. Langlands (“Roman Exempla and Situational Ethics: Valerius Maximus and
Cicero de Officiis,” JRS 101 [2011] 100–22) on the principle of “situational variability” or
“situational ethics” as applied to exempla as a means to understand how Roman readers may
have recognized and applied the moral guidance provided by exempla in their own lives.
410 Classical World

both use Boudica to comment upon the nature of the same virtue: Dio
and Tacitus imagine how virtus may be enacted in an unexpected situa-
tion and commented upon by a provincial woman. This enactment pres-
ents virtus as independent of sex and bound to the defense of libertas, as
well as an ideal of uncompromising leadership.

II. Tacitus’ Boudica and Models of Virtus

For Tacitus, Boudica symbolizes the necessity for freedom from servi-
tude to any master.28 I argue that Tacitus garners sympathy for Boudica
as a female leader with virtus through alluding to several episodes of
early Roman history in his narrative. By drawing upon prior models,
Tacitus identifies the qualities that define an effective leader and in-
vites an analysis of Boudica as such. Boudica’s episode becomes an
exploration into the facility of past exempla to provide an interpretive
framework for a similar situation in a different cultural and historical
context. Models of virtus, pudicitia, and libertas from the Roman Re-
public are pressed into service in order to evaluate the character and
actions of a foreign woman on the outskirts of the Empire. Tacitus suc-
ceeds in accentuating similarities between Boudica and prior models,
but his presentation of her death and the ending of her episode call the
function of these models into question. Livian exempla provide com-
parative material for a woman with unexpected virtus, and Boudica’s
actions serve as a litmus test for the capacity of Livian models to adapt
to an imperial context.
Tacitus memorializes Boudica as a nationalist icon for the unified
Britons in both the Agricola and the Annals.29 In the Agricola, follow-
ing the early history of the Romans in Britain, Tacitus presents several
general criticisms the Britons may have had against Roman rule.30 Chief

28
On libertas in general, see C. Wirszubski, Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome
During the Late Republic and Early Principate (Cambridge 1950); on types of freedom in
Tacitus, see M. Hammond, “Res olim dissociabiles: Principatus ac Libertas: Liberty under
the Early Roman Empire,” HSCP 67 (1963) 93–113.
29
See Dyson (above, n.5) for a comparative study of native revolts: as a charismatic
leader and hero, Vercingetorix is preeminent, whereas Arminius provides a parallel as a
nationalist icon.
30
W. Liebeschuetz (“The Theme of Liberty in the Agricola of Tacitus,” CQ 16.1
[1966] 136) argues that the grievances voiced in the Agricola “have been generalized
almost out of recognition.”
 Gillespie | The Wolf and the Hare 411

among their complaints is the insatiable Roman greed and lust prevalent
during the reign of Nero.31 In the Annals, the affairs in Britain open Tac-
itus’ account of the year 61 C.E.: while the provincial governor Suetonius
Paulinus is attacking Anglesey, Boudica leads a revolt.32 Boudica emerges
as an immediate contrast to her husband, Prasutagus. Prasutagus was a
client king of Rome, a position tenuously balanced between libertas and
servitus that kept his people out of war.33 This balance is thrown off in
Prasutagus’ final act of obsequiousness towards Nero. In his will, Pra-
sutagus names his two daughters and Nero as coheirs. Tacitus attributes
his motivation for this act as the hope that the gift to the emperor would
protect his family from harm.34 Instead, his daughters are raped, his wife
Boudica is beaten, and the Romans pillage the country and enslave his
relatives.35 Although left out of her husband’s will, Boudica nevertheless
becomes the sole leader of the Iceni.36 She leads a successful attack on
Camulodunum, the center of Roman power in Britain and a site hous-
ing a temple to the divine Claudius. This location of imperial cult wor-
ship is an ever-present reminder of Roman rule, “a citadel of eternal
enslavement” (arx aeternae dominationis, Tac. Ann. 14.31.4).37 The

31
Tac. Ag. 15.2: Nihil iam cupiditati, nihil libidini exceptum (“Nothing is now ex-
empt from their avarice, nothing from their lust”); cf. Tac. Ann. 14.35.1: Romanorum
cupidines (“The desires of the Romans”).
32
C. J. Classen (“Tacitus: Historian between Republic and Principate,” Mnemosyne
41 [1988] 108) notes that Tacitus’ focus on the initial defeat builds on the author’s de-
scription of the failures and crimes of 59 and 60 C.E. that characterized Nero and his reign.
33
Tac. Ann. 12.31.3. On the connection between the client-king system, libertas
and servitus, and the failures of the system, see A. W. Gowing, “Tacitus and the Client
Kings,” TAPA 120 (1990) 316.
34
In the remainder of the episode, Nero and his advisors are absent from any inter-
vention in the Boudica revolt (as noted by J. Tresch, Die Nerobücher in den Annalen des
Tacitus: Tradition und Leistung [Heidelberg 1965] 121).
35
Tac. Ann. 14.31.1.
36
As noted by Braund (above, n.9) 124, Tacitus never refers to her as a regina,
although he refers to Cartimandua as such. F. S. L’Hoir (Tragedy, Rhetoric, and the Histo-
riography of Tacitus’ Annales [Ann Arbor 2006] 130) suggests that Boudica represents in
a Roman mindset a “female usurper of legitimate male authority.” D. Konstan (“Women,
Ethnicity and Power in the Roman Empire,” Ordia Prima 1 [2002] 17–18) notes, “An
independent queen is an objective challenge to the premise that women are incapable of
ruling. . . . A barbarian queen may be represented as ruling an effeminate people, though
the trick is harder to manage if her military successes are conspicuous.”
37
On the temple of Divine Claudius at Camulodunum, see M. Lewis, Temples in
Roman Britain (Cambridge 1966) 61–64; D. Fishwick, “The Temple of Divus Claudius at
Camulodunum,” Britannia 26 (1995) 11–27; D. Fishwick, “The Provincial Centre at Cam-
ulodunum: Towards a Historical Context,” Britannia 28 (1997) 31–50. On the question
412 Classical World

architectural backdrop symbolizes the continued power of the Roman

emperors and identifies the type of rule as one without mercy, defined
by avarice and lust and by pleasure rather than utility. The negative con-
notations of dominatio suggest an equivalency between foreign affairs
on the island and Roman political tensions under the Julio-Claudians.38
Tacitus links dominatio to the rule of a tyrant and uses the term to char-
acterize the hereditary principate,39 the reigns of bad emperors,40 and the
type of power desired by women of the imperial family.41 In connecting
a site of imperial worship to dominatio, Tacitus sets the stage for revolt.
The Britons attack and easily destroy the unfortified settlement.42
By eliminating the physical evidence of negative leadership, the Brit-
ons also work against this form of rule. After a series of skirmishes, the
tribes gather for battle, and their wives accompany them to witness the

of whether the temple was founded during or after Claudius’ lifetime, see C. J. Simpson,
“Once Again Claudius and the Temple at Colchester,” Britannia 24 (1993) 1–6.
38
The idea that Tacitus uses foreign affairs to comment upon the political situation
in Rome is reflected elsewhere in the Annals. See E. Keitel (“The Role of Parthia and
Armenia in Tacitus Annals 11 and 12,” AJP 99 [1978] 462–73) on Tacitus’ discussion of
Armenia and Parthia as a reflection upon Claudian Rome. See H. W. Benario (“Tacitus
and the Principate,” CJ 60 [1964–65] 97–106) for a study of Tacitus’ use of principatus,
dominatio, and regnum; Benario concludes that Tacitus was not disillusioned with the
principate as a system, but rather with individual principes. J. Percival (“Tacitus and the
Principate,” G&R 27.2 [1980] 119–33) argues that Tacitus presents the Republic as de-
fined by libertas and the principate, beginning with Augustus, as a dominatio requiring
allegiance in the form of servitium/servitus; Percival agrees that Tacitus’ argument was not
against the Principate, but against bad principes under whom opportunities for libertas
were diminished. Braund (above, n.9) 124 notes, “In writing about ‘the other,’ Tacitus was
also writing about ‘the self’: as his narrative moves back and forth between Rome and the
provinces, there is a powerful echo.”
39
Augustus’ rule is first labeled a dominatio in Tacitus’ discussion of potential suc-
cessors (Tac. Ann. 1.3.1), and he is criticized for giving largesse to veterans in his desire
for dominatio (Tac. Ann. 1.10.1).
40
After Livia’s death, Tiberius’ reign becomes an unmitigated dominatio (Tac.
Ann. 5.3.1); Nero uses dominatio to order the death of Vestinus (Tac. Ann. 15.69.1), and
blames all of the crimes perpetrated under Claudius’ dominatio on his mother (Tac. Ann.
14.11.2). Arruntius predicts that Caligula’s reign will be a more bitter servitude than that
of Tiberius (acrius servitium, Tac. Ann. 6.48.2).
41
Livia reminds Tiberius that she gave him dominatio as a gift (Tac. Ann. 4.57.3);
Sejanus accuses Agrippina the Elder of desiring dominatio (Tac. Ann. 4.12.3; Ann.
6.25.2); Agrippina the Younger is chaste after her marriage to Claudius, unless it aided in
her dominatio (Tac. Ann. 12.7.3), and she desires Seneca as a tutor for Nero so that the
mother and son team can take advantage of his advice in their desire for dominatio (Tac.
Ann. 12.8.2); after the death of Claudius, Agrippina burns with desire of dominatio (Tac.
Ann. 13.2.2; cf. Ann. 14.2.2).
42
Tac. Ann. 14.31.4.
 Gillespie | The Wolf and the Hare 413

impending victory.43 As these women encircle the battlefield, one woman

guides her chariot to the center and addresses them all:

Boudicca curru filias prae se vehens, ut quamque nationem accesserat,

solitum quidem Britannis feminarum ductu bellare testabatur, sed tunc
non ut tantis maioribus ortam regnum et opes, verum ut unam e vulgo
libertatem amissam, confectum verberibus corpus, contrectatam filiarum
pudicitiam ulcisci. eo provectas Romanorum cupidines, ut non corpora,
ne senectam quidem aut virginitatem impollutam relinquant. [2] adesse
tamen deos iustae vindictae; cecidisse legionem, quae proelium ausa sit;
ceteros castris occultari aut fugam circumspicere. ne strepitum quidem
et clamorem tot milium, nedum impetus et manus perlaturos. si copias
armatorum, si causas belli secum expenderent, vincendum illa acie vel
cadendum esse. id mulieri destinatum: viverent viri et servirent.
(Tac. Ann. 14.35.1–2)

Boudica, riding in her chariot, her daughters before her, as she ap-
proached each tribe declared that it was customary for Britons to fight
under the leadership of women, but at that moment she was not acting
as a woman born of great ancestors seeking a kingdom and wealth, but
truly as one woman from the crowd seeking to avenge lost freedom, a
body weakened by beating, the violated chastity of her daughters. She
declared that Roman lusts were so advanced that they leave no bod-
ies, not even old age or maidenhood, undefiled. Nevertheless, the gods
favor just vengeance: a legion that dared battle had fallen. Those who
remain were hiding in their camps or seeking an escape. She declared
that they would not endure the rumble and cry of so many thousands,
nor the attack and combat. If the Britons considered the abundance
of troops, the motivations for the war, they would realize that their
battle line must conquer or fall. She declared that was the intention of
a woman: the men might live and serve.

Exhibiting her daughters before her, Boudica calls for vengeance against
those who violated their pudicitia. Adler argues that Boudica displays
both Roman and non-Roman, feminine and masculine, traits in her
speech: she is a “slightly idealized Roman woman” who displays her
daughters as a “wronged Roman matron,” but she also claims a role as
the ultrix for her daughters’ lost chastity, a role understood as reserved
for men.44 Boudica capitalizes on the rape of her daughters as an impetus
and indeed an authorization for her uprising; through this focus, her

43
Tac. Ann. 14.34.2.
44
Adler (above, n.3) 181–82; L’Hoir (above, n.36) 141.
414 Classical World

narrative is linked to that of Lucretia, whose rape by Sextus Tarquinius

serves as a catalyst for the expulsion of the kings. Although Boudica
is not the rape victim herself, her family’s situation is brought into the
public realm in order to provide the impetus for a similar political and
military response. Adler notes the parallel and concludes, “ . . . it is inter-
esting to note that this historical connection serves both to ‘Romanize’
Boudica and to present a justification for the rebellion somewhat akin to
Rome’s expulsion of a ‘foreign’ monarchy.”45
Although Tacitus’ episode has no direct verbal allusions to Livy, the
situation and appearance of Boudica’s daughters suggests that Tacitus in-
tentionally created the episode with Livy’s Lucretia and Brutus in mind.
Adler’s assessment suggests that Tacitus’ representation of Boudica and
her daughters alludes to the Livian narrative to identify her rebellion as
both “Roman” and political. I argue that considerations of gender and
power underlie this parallel and concentrate the reader’s focus on Bou-
dica’s potential for female excess in emotion and action. By appearing
at the head of a chariot, Boudica crosses the expected boundaries of her
gender and creates a spectacle that has no direct Roman precedents. Her
actions recall those of Livy’s Brutus more than his Lucretia, as he rouses
the men to arms over her defiled body.46 In Livy’s episode, the body of
Lucretia is the focus around which people gather. Brutus brings them
together and demands vengeance and recompense for a specific act of
violence towards women; he then becomes the exemplary leader of a
growing band of young men. Lucretia’s body serves as a symbol of tyran-
nical servitude and the catalyst for the Roman fight for libertas from the
kings.47 In Tacitus’ Annals, Boudica creates the unifying image around
which the Britons muster. The bodies of her daughters become political
emblems of tyrannical lust; these bodies are silent and need a leader to
speak for them. Boudica reproduces aspects of Livy’s image of Lucretia,
aiming to achieve a similar political transformation.48

45
Adler (above n.3) 181.
46
Cf. Livy 1.59.3: Elatum domo Lucretiae corpus in forum deferunt, concientque
miraculo, ut fit, rei novae atque indignitate homines (“Having carried the body of Lucretia
from the house they placed it in the forum, where they gathered a crowd in wonder, as it
happens, at the extraordinary vileness of the crime”).
47
On Lucretia and Verginia as “political bodies” in Livy’s text, see Joshel (above,
n.20).
48
Adler (above, n.3) 181 notes, “To be sure, the parallel is not perfect—Boudica is
not personally the victim of sexual misconduct, and she certainly does not respond in the
same fashion as that attributed to Lucretia. Still, it is interesting to note that this historical
 Gillespie | The Wolf and the Hare 415

A second scene from Livy strengthens the argument that Taci-

tus’ Boudica uses her potential models in order to justify her cause;
verbal allusions align Boudica to a male freedom fighter, confirming
that Tacitus is conscientiously connecting Livian models of freedom
from tyranny to Boudica and her family. While Boudica’s appearance
with her daughters corresponds to that of Brutus with Lucretia, her
words recall Livy’s account of Verginia, a maiden killed by her father
in order to avoid rape and enslavement to a tyrannical magistrate.
Thematic foci, narrative details, and central Roman ideals connect
Verginia and Lucretia in Livy. In Livy’s narrative, Verginia’s body
is displayed to another incensed crowd and becomes a stimulus for
change and the downfall of the decemvirate during the Conflict of
the Orders. During the events leading up to Verginia’s death, her be-
trothed, Icilius, speaks in defense of her pudicitia: he laments her lost
libertas, connecting the idea of freedom to the highest female virtue
of pudicitia.49 L’Hoir has argued that Boudica’s rhetoric and role as
ultrix is reminiscent of Icilius: Tacitus’ Boudica, through adopting
Icilius’ words and taking on the role of ultrix, transgresses expected
gender roles for Roman women.50 Visual parallels also connect Bou-
dica as a parent to Verginia’s father. Verginius kills his daughter as a
way to preserve her libertas and, by extension, her pudicitia.51 Boud-
ica uses the bodies of her daughters as a reference point for the need
for a similar freedom.
Boudica claims that she is not one woman fighting against the vio-
lators of her daughters, but that she is one woman in a collective. She
brings her daughters onto the field of battle as symbols of violated lib-
ertas. The girls do not speak, nor do they follow Lucretia’s example and
commit suicide. Instead, they become referential props, recalling two
illustrative examples from Livy’s early history of Rome. Tacitus imagines
a similar scene of rising emotion leading to swift action. He rejects neg-
ative models of failed female leadership among non-Roman tribes,52 in-
stead utilizing positive male examples, leaders and defenders of Roman

connection serves both to ‘Romanize’ Boudica and to present a justification for the rebel-
lion somewhat akin to Rome’s expulsion of a ‘foreign’ monarchy.”
49
See Joshel (above, n.20) on Livy 3.44–49; for Icilius’ speech. see Livy 3.45.6–11.
50
L’Hoir (above, n.36) 140–41.
51
Livy 3.48.5.
52
On the contrast between Boudica and Cartimandua, see above n.9.
416 Classical World

freedom.53 Tacitus engages with Livy through visual similarities between

Lucretia and Boudica’s daughters and verbal parallels with Icilius and
Boudica. Boudica is differentiated primarily as a woman subjected to
physical harm who became a leader instead of being destroyed. Her
Roman precedents allow her to appear similar to a Roman matrona
pleading for her children and to draw a parallel connection between
pudicitia and libertas in giving her just cause for revolt. Boudica’s mas-
culine rhetoric and call to arms connects her to Icilius and Brutus; how-
ever, Braund argues that she is perhaps too excessive in her vengeance
and lacks reasoned forethought, a stereotypical failure of non-Roman
leaders that sets her apart from her models.54
Boudica’s imitation of Brutus and Icilius forms part of her character-
ization as a leader adept at rousing her troops to action. One additional
Livian exemplum similarly combines the three ideals of pudicitia, liber-
tas, and virtus, and further suggests that even a woman may win gloria
through virtus. Boudica is comparable to Cloelia, memorialized for her
actions during the war with Lars Porsenna in the second and third years
of the Republic.55 After witnessing the honors bestowed upon Mucius
Scaevola for his acts of bravery,56 Cloelia was inspired to seek public hon-
ors through proving her own masculine courage. Cloelia was sent as a
hostage to Porsenna and, after deceiving her guards, took charge of a
group of maidens, leading them across the Tiber and back to their fami-
lies. Porsenna demanded Cloelia’s return, but his anger transformed into
admiration. He praised her virtus and her deed as even greater than those
of Horatius Cocles and Mucius Scaevola. Porsenna honored Cloelia’s
bravery, while respecting her feminine chastity. He allowed her to return
to Rome with some of the remaining hostages: she chose the vulnerable
young boys and was praised further for this choice. When the war ended,
she was honored with an equestrian statue on the Via Sacra, a monument
to her unique masculine courage and a challenge to young men to emulate

53
Cf. Tac. Ann. 1.1.1: Urbem Romam a principio reges habuere; libertatem et con-
sulatum L. Brutus instituit (“Kings ruled the city of Rome at the beginning; Lucius Brutus
established freedom and the consulship”).
54
Braund (above, n.9) 138 notes: “Tacitus’ Boudica has a just cause, but one which
has perhaps already been pursued too far, beyond the moral parameters of proper ven-
geance. She shows great bravery, but it is a bravery without disciplined thought: such was
the stereotype of barbarian courage, lacking any rational underpinning.”
55
Livy 2.13.6–11.
56
Livy 2.12–13.5.
 Gillespie | The Wolf and the Hare 417

her for generations to come.57 Her character seems paradoxical: Roller

has identified her as a “manly maiden,” a singular dux femina with virtus
that becomes a model for men.58 Nevertheless, other authors confirm her
role as an exemplum virtutis: in his Consolatio ad Marciam, Seneca cites
Brutus and Cloelia as models Marcia should look to for strength. Brutus
and Cloelia are united by the ethical category of virtus, and the nobility of
their actions overwhelms considerations of gender.59
Tacitus’ Boudica is likewise a powerful female leader who provides in-
spiration and a challenge to men. Although Tacitus does not label Boudica
as an exemplum, he has drawn upon several models in Livy for his char-
acterization. When Boudica places her daughters before her and speaks
in the manner of a Brutus or Icilius, she aims to inspire the Britons to
fight. Her daughters suggest the politicized bodies of Livy’s Lucretia or
Verginia, for whom the loss of pudicitia was equated to a loss of libertas.
Boudica’s leadership capabilities represent a degree of masculine strength
similar to that of Cloelia. Unlike Cloelia, who labors for the freedom of all
the hostages out of an aspiration for state recognition and glory, Boudica’s
impetus for action is linked to personal injury and her family. Her desire
for vengeance only includes freedom for an entire people after she and her
daughters are attacked. Boudica’s beaten body then becomes a form of
commemoration and a symbol of her commitment to fight.
At the end of her speech, Boudica suggests that the choice between
freedom and servitude is gendered. She labels her promise either to con-
quer or die trying as the intention of a woman, whereas the men may live
on, enslaved.60 Boudica directly challenges men to imitate her and to act
decisively and immediately; her challenge echoes the lesson presented by
the equestrian statue of Cloelia. Cloelia is confirmed as a model through

57
Livy 2.11: Pace redintegrata Romani nouam in femina uirtutem nouo genere
honoris, statua equestri, donauere; in summa Sacra uia fuit posita uirgo insidens equo
(“When peace had been restored the Romans rewarded the new virtus in a woman with a
new form of honor, an equestrian statue; a maiden sitting on a horse was set up at the head
of the Sacred Way”). Cf. Val. Max. 3.2.2.
58
M. Roller, “Exemplarity in Roman Culture: The Cases of Horatius Cocles and
Cloelia,” CP 99 (2004) 28–50.
59
Sen. Cons. Marc. 16.1–2; on which see Roller (above, n.58) 36–38.
60
Tac. Ann. 14.35.2. Roberts (above, n.16) 126–27 suggests the association of lib-
ertas with the female and servitium with the male is subversive. See L’Hoir (above, n.36)
113 on Tacitus’ word choice: the “juxtaposition of femina with dominatio and servitium
insinuates that women who overreach their prescribed positions within the domus will
invariably impose servitude on both household and state.”
418 Classical World

her citation by later authors, whereas Boudica’s example only succeeds

for the moment.
Boudica’s speech is followed by that of Suetonius Paulinus, who ob-
serves that more women than soldiers are visible (plus illic feminarum
quam iuventutis adspici, Tac. Ann. 14.36.1).61 Paulinus uses sex as a
means of comparison and implies that under the leadership of a woman
the Britons are womanly themselves. His comment is ironic when read in
opposition to Boudica, whose sex defines her as one willing to sacrifice
her life in hopes of instigating political change and whose death by suicide
proves it. After the battle, in which the Britons suffer total destruction and
even the women observing on the sidelines are slain, Boudica ends her life
with poison, staying true to her sentiment that death is preferable to ser-
vitude.62 Like Lucretia, who committed suicide in order to be a model for
the virtue of pudicitia, Boudica dies in order to confirm her primary value
of libertas. Unlike her Livian models, Boudica’s death fails to incite others
to continue the fight for freedom, but rather marks the end of the revolt.
With this conclusion, Tacitus suggests this model of female leadership and
strength merits commemoration but not emulation. His Boudica is aware
that the acquisition of freedom requires a courageous leader, a role she
adopts after the Romans harm her family. The models he has chosen for
her to emulate equated libertas and pudicitia, where the loss or threatened
loss of the sexual chastity of Lucretia, Verginia, and the young hostages
taken with Cloelia came to represent an overall threat to Roman freedom.
Those who championed liberty provided models for the state and their
deaths brought Roman men together in a unified fight. Through Boudica,
Tacitus suggests the collective spirit that valued universal libertas above
all else is no longer alive during the principate, among Romans or non-Ro-
mans. His Boudica succeeds in proving her own valuation of libertas, but
her death fails to inspire others to take her place.

III. Dio’s Boudica and Female Rulers

Both Tacitus and Dio experiment with the flexibility of exempla to suit
different historical, political, and cultural circumstances. While Tacitus
demonstrates the differences between Livian models and the Republican

61
See Roberts (above, n.16) 126 on “counterpoint” speeches in Tacitus.
62
Tac. Ann. 14.37.3: Boudicca vitam veneno finivit (“Boudica ended her life with
poison”).
 Gillespie | The Wolf and the Hare 419

spirit of libertas through incorporating thematic elements and charac-

ter resemblances into his Boudica episodes, Dio names Boudica’s ex-
empla directly. Dio imagines a Boudica whose actions, character, and
perspective on Rome offer an explicit contrast to her potential models
of female leadership. For Dio, Boudica functions as an internal critic of
imperial women whose actions are discussed elsewhere in his history. In
Xiphilinus’ epitome, Boudica’s revolt enters the narrative in the midst of
Nero’s descent into debauchery and theatrical license.63 Nero is infatu-
ated with Poppaea Sabina, who encouraged the murder of Agrippina; he
recently celebrated the Neronia and Juvenalia, where he performed on
the lyre and won. Boudica is embedded in this context, and Dio defines
the affairs in Briton as a foreign pathos during “play-time” in Rome
(ἐπαίζετο).

Ἐν ᾧ δὲ ταῦτα ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ ἐπαίζετο, πάθος ἐν τῇ Βρεττανίᾳ δεινὸν

συνηνέχθη· δύο τε γὰρ πόλεις ἐπορθήθησαν, καὶ μυριάδες ὀκτὼ τῶν τε
Ῥωμαίων καὶ τῶν συμμάχων αὐτῶν ἐφθάρησαν, ἥ τε νῆσος ἠλλοτριώθη.
καὶ ταῦτα μέντοι πάντα ὑπὸ γυναικὸς αὐτοῖς συνηνέχθη, ὥστε καὶ κατὰ
τοῦτο πλείστην αὐτοῖς αἰσχύνην συμβῆναι. . . .
(D.C. 62.1.1)

While this sort of play was happening in Rome, an awful disaster oc-
curred in Britain: two cities were destroyed, and eighty thousand Ro-
mans and their allies died, and the island was lost. And moreover, all
of this was brought upon them by a woman, and this in itself was the
greatest cause of shame for the Romans.

The destruction of cities and loss of Roman control is sudden and seem-
ingly complete. The disaster results in a feeling of shame, since the Brit-
ons succeeded under the leadership of a woman: the unexpected power
of a female leader is more shocking than the success of a foreign army
over the Roman military. Dio invites a comparative evaluation of Nero
and Boudica in which Boudica’s masculine leadership is proven by her
achievements on the battlefield, whereas Nero’s lack of leadership in
favor of the pursuit of personal pleasure is confirmed by his attention

63
For an assessment of Xiphilinus as an inconsistent epitomator, see F. Millar (A
Study of Cassius Dio [Oxford 1964] 2,), who states: “Xiphilinus’ work is not so much a
précis of Dio as a rather erratic selection from his material, substantially, but not invari-
ably, in Dio’s order and often keeping very close to Dio’s wording. Thus a large amount of
material is omitted without trace, some is given in brief, and some, especially where there
is a coherent narrative or anecdote of some special interest, is reproduced almost in full.”
420 Classical World

to the lyre. When Dio’s Boudica speaks, her words echo the historian’s
critical representation of Nero and attest to the dangerous results an
effeminate, self-absorbed leader may have on an entire populace. Bou-
dica is masculine in action and foreign in appearance. As she ascends a
Roman-style platform to speak to her troops, her fearsome visage instills
awe and fear in those she addresses.

ἦν δὲ καὶ τὸ σῶμα μεγίστη καὶ τὸ εἶδος βλοσυρωτάτη τό τε βλέμμα

δριμυτάτη, καὶ τὸ φθέγμα τραχὺ εἶχε, [4] τήν τε κόμην πλείστην τε καὶ
ξανθοτάτην οὖσαν μέχρι τῶν γλουτῶν καθεῖτο, καὶ στρεπτὸν μέγαν
χρυσοῦν ἐφόρει, χιτῶνά τε παμποίκιλον ἐνεκεκόλπωτο, καὶ χλαμύδα ἐπ’
αὐτῷ παχεῖαν ἐνεπεπόρπητο. οὕτω μὲν ἀεὶ ἐνεσκευάζετο· τότε δὲ καὶ
λόγχην λαβοῦσα, ὥστε καὶ ἐκ τούτου πάντας ἐκπλήττειν, ἔλεξεν ὧδε.
(D.C. 62.2.3–4)

She was quite tall in stature, very stern in appearance, her gaze most
piercing, and her voice was rough. Furthermore an abundance of blond
hair fell down to her buttocks, and she wore a large golden necklace.
She wore a multicolored tunic and fastened a cloak around her with a
brooch. Thus she was always dressed. At that point she took up a spear,
in order to astound everyone, and spoke thus.

Here Boudica is neither Brutus with the body of Lucretia nor her Taci-
tean self in a chariot with her violated daughters; instead, she appears as
a barbarian queen and turns Roman stereotypes of unwarlike, womanly
foreign warriors against their perpetrators.64 Her towering height and se-
vere gaze are accentuated by a military cloak, golden torque, and spear:
her non-Roman, unfeminine look creates a worthy foe for Suetonius Pau-
linus. She opens her lengthy tirade against the Romans with a discourse
on the pleasures of freedom over slavery; she then recounts the history of
the Romans in Britain and elaborates upon the inferiority of the present
Roman army, who must wear armor to fight, and cannot bear the cold, or
the wet, or the harsh terrain (D.C. 62.3–5). After releasing a hare from
her bosom and receiving a positive omen for success, Boudica continues,
citing individuals she admires and those she has chosen to avoid. In this
last quarter of her speech, Boudica is forthright in her classification and
evaluation of exempla. As in Tacitus, Dio’s Boudica draws upon models

64
J. Mikalachki (The Legacy of Boadicea: Gender and Nation in Early Modern En-
gland [London 1998] 15) notes that the Britons’ atrocious treatment of the Roman female
captives calls into question Boudica’s maternal leadership.
 Gillespie | The Wolf and the Hare 421

from historiography; however, she cites exclusively negative figures for

comparison. In utilizing the rhetoric of exemplarity, Dio places his Bou-
dica within a larger discourse of gender and power in order to critique
early imperial dynastic politics. Invoking the warrior goddess Andraste,
she outlines the misdeeds and misrepresentations of several individuals
and defines each as an anti-model for her present course of action:

“χάριν τέ σοι ἔχω, ὦ Ἀνδράστη, καὶ προσεπικαλοῦμαί σε γυνὴ γυναῖκα,

οὐκ Αἰγυπτίων ἀχθοφόρων ἄρχουσα ὡς Νίτκωρις, οὐδ’ Ἀσσυρίων
τῶν ἐμπόρων ὡς Σεμίραμις (καὶ γὰρ ταῦτ’ ἤδη παρὰ τῶν Ῥωμαίων
μεμαθήκαμεν), οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ Ῥωμαίων αὐτῶν [3] ὡς πρότερον μὲν
Μεσσαλῖνα ἔπειτ’ Ἀγριππῖνα νῦν δὲ καὶ Νέρων (ὄνομα μὲν <γὰρ>
ἀνδρὸς ἔχει, ἔργῳ δὲ γυνή ἐστι· σημεῖον δέ, ᾄδει καὶ κιθαρίζει καὶ
καλλωπίζεται), ἀλλὰ ἀνδρῶν Βρεττανῶν, γεωργεῖν μὲν ἢ δημιουργεῖν
οὐκ εἰδότων, πολεμεῖν δὲ ἀκριβῶς μεμαθηκότων, καὶ τά τε ἄλλα πάντα
κοινὰ καὶ παῖδας καὶ γυναῖκας κοινὰς νομιζόντων, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ
ἐκείνων τὴν αὐτὴν τοῖς ἄρρεσιν ἀρετὴν ἐχουσῶν. [4] τοιούτων οὖν
ἀνδρῶν καὶ τοιούτων γυναικῶν βασιλεύουσα προσεύχομαί τέ σοι καὶ
αἰτῶ νίκην καὶ σωτηρίαν καὶ ἐλευθερίαν κατ’ ἀνδρῶν ὑβριστῶν ἀδίκων
ἀπλήστων ἀνοσίων, εἴ γε καὶ ἄνδρας χρὴ καλεῖν ἀνθρώπους ὕδατι θερμῷ
λουμένους, ὄψα σκευαστὰ ἐσθίοντας, οἶνον ἄκρατον πίνοντας, μύρῳ
ἀλειφομένους, μαλθακῶς κοιμωμένους, μετὰ μειρακίων, καὶ τούτων
ἐξώρων, καθεύδοντας, κιθαρῳδῷ, καὶ τούτῳ κακῷ, δουλεύοντας. [5] μὴ
γάρ τοι μήτ’ ἐμοῦ μήθ’ ὑμῶν ἔτι βασιλεύσειεν ἡ Νερωνὶς ἡ ∆ομιτία, ἀλλ’
ἐκείνη μὲν Ῥωμαίων ᾄδουσα δεσποζέτω (καὶ γὰρ ἄξιοι τοιαύτῃ γυναικὶ
δουλεύειν, ἧς τοσοῦτον ἤδη χρόνον ἀνέχονται τυραννούσης), ἡμῶν δὲ
σύ ὦ δέσποινα ἀεὶ μόνη προστατοίης.”
(D.C. 62.6.2–5)

I give you thanks, Andraste, and I, a woman, call upon you, a woman,
not as one ruling over the burden-bearing Egyptians, as Nitocris, nor
over Assyrian merchants, as Semiramis (for indeed we have learned
these things from the Romans), nor indeed over the Romans themselves,
as Messalina before, and then Agrippina, and now Nero (for although
he is a man in name, he is a woman in deed; a sure sign of this, he sings
and plays the lyre and beautifies himself), but as ruler of the Britons,
who do not know how to farm or work, but who are learned precisely in
warfare, and who recognize everything as shared in common, even chil-
dren and wives, and on account of this the women have the same valor
as the men. As queen of such men and women, therefore, I pray to you
for victory, safety, and freedom from insolent, unjust, insatiable, impious
men, if at any rate it is fitting to call these people men, who bathe in
warm water, eat prepared dainties, drink unmixed wine, anoint them-
selves with myrrh, recline on soft couches, with young boys, and boys
422 Classical World

past their prime, who are slaves to a lyre-player, and a bad one besides.
Accordingly may Lady Domitia Nero rule no longer over me or you, but
rather let her sing and rule over the Romans, (for surely they are worthy
of serving such a woman, since they have submitted to her for so long),
but may you alone, mistress, be our ruler always.

Dio’s Boudica reflects upon the nature of female leadership and presents
herself as superior to other foreign queens, Roman imperial women,
and the effeminate Nero. Her catalogue of summae feminae effectively
elucidates a range of types of failed female leaders. Her recitation of
anti-models distances her from women whose leadership depends upon
deception, sexual profligacy, and the subordination of her people.
Boudica first contrasts herself with Nitocris and Semiramis,
queens of Babylon celebrated in Herodotus’ Histories. Rather than call
attention to the beauty and deviousness of the former or the sexual
licentiousness of the latter, Boudica finds fault in that these women did
not inspire men to break the bonds of servitude.65 Dio’s Boudica fo-
cuses on public works above moral character and on the types of men
ruled by each. In Herodotus, the two queens are praised for making
improvements to the walls and sanctuaries of Babylon.66 Diodorus Sic-
ulus adds that Semiramis set out to build the city and surround it with
walls and gates; she was also responsible for a network of cities, roads,
and other building projects along the Tigris and Euphrates that aided
merchants and brought trade and fame to Babylon.67 Nitocris, con-
sidered the wiser of the two by Herodotus, made further progress by
altering the course of the Euphrates and bridging the river to connect
the two sides of the city.68 These women are successful when acting on
the defensive, building walls and managing the protection of their city
and surrounding areas, but not on the offensive: Semiramis fails utterly
in an ill-conceived war against India, losing two-thirds of her force
and retreating homeward.69 Boudica distances herself as a successful

65
On which see Collingridge (above, n.5) 239.
66
Hdt. 1.84–87 describes the public works commissioned by Semiramis and then
by Nitocris five generations later. At Hdt. 3.155.5 Zopyrus refers to the Gate of Semiramis,
memorializing her role in their construction. Prop. 3.11.21–26 recognizes Semiramis for
building the walls of Babylon.
67
D.S. 2.4–20 gives the biography of Semiramis (D.S. 2.7–8 discusses the building
of Babylon; 2.11.1–3 her cities along the rivers; 2.12–14 additional works and roads).
68
Hdt. 1.85–86.
69
D.S. 2.16–19.
 Gillespie | The Wolf and the Hare 423

woman on the offensive front and as a leader of a different type of men:

she has gained the trust of an army, warriors rather than merchants
and builders.70 By overlooking other causes for praise or critique of
the Babylonian queens, Boudica emphasizes the specificity of her ex-
empla by drawing attention to leadership style.71 Semiramis and Nitoc-
ris are anti-models for Boudica, despite their political successes. Dio
cites Herodotean models that he might have drawn upon to portray
a foreign queen only to reject them. He, like Tacitus, employs other
historians as a source for exempla. He turns to recent Roman history
and models of moral ineptitude for the remainder of Boudica’s speech.
Boudica signals the transition to Roman exempla by calling her Brit-
ons to be men, rather than slaves to Rome. In a parenthetical statement,
she notes that the Britons have learned about Nitocris and Semiramis
from the Romans themselves (καὶ γὰρ ταῦτ’ ἤδη παρὰ τῶν Ῥωμαίων
μεμαθήκαμεν, D.C. 62.6.2). Dio’s Boudica thereby recognizes that her
understanding of historical exempla and exemplarity derives from the
Romans. Though her statement seems awkward, since her knowledge
seems to require explanation, Boudica’s parenthesis communicates
a significant rationale for Dio’s inclusion of prior historical models in
his work; Boudica’s Babylonian anti-models signal that Dio could have
offered an extensive character comparison between Boudica and other
queens and drawn upon other historical narratives for his own, but that
he values her more as a commentator on Rome.72 In his context, Boudica
has learned about various models from the Romans and has chosen to be
a different type of leader.
In turning to anti-models of weak, feminine leadership, Boudica
presents a tricolon of increasingly condemnable figures, from Messalina

70
Livy’s Brutus (Livy 1.59.9) gives a similar contrast between military men and arti-
sans in calling the Romans to arms against the Tarquins: Romanos homines, victores om-
nium circa populorum, opifices ac lapicidas pro bellatoribus factos (“Roman men, victors
of all peoples around, had been made into artisans and stonecutters instead of warriors”).
71
Regarding the queens as positive models, Dio’s Julia Domna wished to make
herself the equal of Semiramis and Nitocris (D.C. 79.23.1–3).
72
Adler (above, n.13) 150–51 notes: “The bookish mention of female rulers seems
to be a way for Dio to impress the reader with his own erudition. Even if Boudica had
somehow managed to obtain this information, there would be little reason to offer it to
her troops. The nod to the idea of the Romans schooling the Britons in the history of other
societies is a particularly clunky and unrealistic touch.” Braund (above n. 9) 143 notes:
“Evidently uncomfortable with Boudica’s classical learning on the subject of Nitocris and
Semiramis, key models of queenship, Dio has her explain how she and her audience have
come to know about them.”
424 Classical World

to Agrippina the Younger, culminating with Nero, who proves his fem-
ininity by playing the lyre and concerning himself with his own beauti-
fication. Messalina and Agrippina are classified together and receive no
further qualification than their positions as rulers of Rome. Taking into
account Boudica’s parenthesis, her critique may call to mind the nega-
tive portrayal of the empresses in Dio, Tacitus, and others, who censure
the wives of Claudius for immorality, lasciviousness, avarice, and decep-
tion. Here, Messalina and Agrippina are identified as the two Roman
rulers preceding Nero. This characterization reflects Dio’s own analysis
of Claudius as an emperor ruled by his wives: through manipulating and
deceiving Claudius, these women ostensibly governed Rome.73 Boud-
ica does not admire the female leaders, unofficial co-rulers rather than
queens.74 Messalina is famous for her licentiousness, and Agrippina for
her overwhelming desire for power, as well as her willingness to compro-
mise her chastity and morality en route.75 Through assessing Agrippina
and Messalina as rulers, Dio has Boudica critique a system of power
that allowed these women to act authoritatively. Her evaluation is based
on an observable inconsistency, in which the appearance of auctoritas
fails to represent the legitimate possession of power.76 With her final
anti-model, Boudica concludes her analysis of the ways in which leader-
ship is inevitably gendered at Rome and argues that, in the case of Nero,
the Romans have failed to realize they are serving another woman. Her
speech recalls the opening of Dio’s account of the revolt and the obser-
vation that an uprising led by a woman produced the greatest amount
of shame for the Romans (D.C. 62.1.1); building on this summation,
Boudica demonstrates that her success was not entirely due to her mas-
culine strength but also to Nero’s weak leadership.77

73
Cf. Suet. Cl. 25.5.
74
Agrippina appears as a co-ruler to Claudius and is recognized as such by Carata-
cus (Tac. Ann. 12.37.4), and presides with Claudius wearing a golden chlamys (Tac. Ann.
12.56.3); on the chlamys as indicating co-rule, see M. Kaplan, “Agrippina semper atrox: A
Study in Tacitus’ Characterization of Women,” in C. Deroux, ed., Studies in Latin Litera-
ture and Roman History I (Brussels 1979) 413–14.
75
Cf. Tac. Ann. 12.7.3. On Agrippina the Younger as a transgressive dux femina
type in Tacitus, see L’Hoir (above, n.10).
76
D.C. 60.33.2 labels Agrippina as another Messalina for her use of the carpentum,
drawing an explicit comparison.
77
A. M. Gowing (“Cassius Dio on the Reign of Nero,” ANRW II 34.3 [1997] 2581)
notes that “whereas Tacitus apparently wishes to stress that the Romans were indeed dis-
gracefully defeated by a woman named Boudicca, Dio subtly suggests that the woman to
whom the Romans owed their defeat was not Boudicca, but Nero.”
 Gillespie | The Wolf and the Hare 425

Boudica’s condemnation of Nero concludes her list of anti-models.

Her speech is hyperbolic, yet her advice to examine the effects of an
effeminate ruler on his people points towards Dio’s characterization
of Nero and his negative appraisal of Nero’s theatrical activities else-
where.78 Like Messalina and his mother, Nero is an anti-model because
his name does not match his actions; however, the analogical relationship
between these individuals as female rulers differs. Messalina and Agrip-
pina overstepped the boundaries of their authority as women in their
appropriation of the empire during the reign of Claudius: women are
not legitimate rulers. Nero is the emperor, but this man acts the woman
through his attention to song, lyre-playing, and beauty, pursuits that win
prizes but not wars. Nero undermines his own authority through acting
solely for personal pleasure rather than for the good of the state. Fur-
thermore, his transgressions have tainted Roman mores: the men have
grown womanly due to their enslavement to this leader.79 Worst of all,
the Romans have not revolted against Nero but seem to recognize him
as a new type of model. Although Nero has failed spectacularly as a pos-
itive exemplum, the Romans emulate him nonetheless.
Nero’s failure indicates an innate problem with the concept of
exemplarity during the principate. The princeps should be the pri-
mary model for the citizens, yet, as Kraus argues, this assumption
compromises the innate flexibility of exempla.80 Dio reflects this idea
through the speech of Boudica, in which the queen suggests that the

78
On Nero and the theater, see C. Edwards, “Beware of Imitations: The Theatre and
the Subversion of Imperial Identity,” in J. Elsner and J. Masters, eds., Reflections of Nero:
Culture, History and Representation (Chapel Hill and London 1994) 80–97; M. P. O.
Morford, “Nero’s Patronage and Participation in Literature and the Arts,” ANRW II 32.3
(1985) 2003–31. Gowing (above, n.77) 2558–590 explores Nero’s theatricality in Dio and
suggests that Dio links Nero’s attraction to the theater to his increasing effeminacy and
to his unsuitability as emperor; compare Adler (above, n.13) 151–52 on Dio’s dislike of
Nero, and n.63 with references.
79
See Adler (above, n.3) 192–93 on Dio’s portrayal of Nero, and Tac. Ann. 13.24.1
on the danger of men becoming decadent through viewing theatrical performances: Fine
anni statio cohortis adsidere ludis solita demovetur, quo maior species libertatis esset,
utque miles theatrali licentiae non permixtus incorruptior ageret (“At the end of the year
the post of the cohort, accustomed to being present at the games, was removed, so that
there might be a greater appearance of freedom, and so that the soldiers would not be
promiscuous or more corrupted by the license of the theater”).
80
Kraus (above, n.18) 188 notes: “When history’s gaze is more or less forcibly di-
rected at the emperor—especially (but not exclusively) to the emperor functioning as a
positive role model—the prescriptive function of exempla becomes dominant. The flex-
ibility inherent in the exemplum thus becomes threatened or even lost, the audience’s
426 Classical World

Romans, effeminized by their leader, deserve to continue to serve

Nero. Using the princeps as the primary model not only questions
the adaptability of exempla for different historical and cultural sit-
uations but also can lead to the disruption of Roman freedom, the
disintegration of gender boundaries, and the degradation of the ide-
als of masculinity and leadership. Boudica and the Britons will not
submit, and, unlike the Romans, they will not alter their morality in
order to match a negative model. Dio’s Boudica condemns Nero as a
failed dux femina due to his effeminate attachment to the theater and
accuses the Romans of slavishness and effeminacy by association;
she openly questions Nero’s gender and calls for a reappraisal of the
sharp distinction between sex and gender that limits those who may
possess Roman imperium.
Through her use of anti-models, Dio’s Boudica identifies a categor-
ical difference between her culture and the structure of other societ-
ies. Boudica applies a familiar portrait of the “other” to the Romans: in
her view, the Romans are soft, effeminate, and enjoy excessive luxuries,
whereas the Britons are enduring of every hardship. Her appearance
and her representation of the Britons recalls Herodotus’ portrait of the
Amazons, whose skills lie in warfare and who live by hunting and tak-
ing booty.81 Boudica appears as a fearsome warrior, and she views her
Britons as a similarly warlike people. By accentuating their Amazonian
qualities, Dio creates a more worthy adversary for the Romans.82 Bou-
dica’s appearance likewise distances the Britons from the Romans as a
people for whom gender does not limit those who may show courage on
the battlefield. Any Briton may earn honors for the display of aretê: sex
operates independently from gender, and maleness is not a sine qua non
of the virtue of manliness.
In her evaluation of her people, Dio’s Boudica seems to respond
to Tacitus’ criticism of the Britons: the foreigners may not distinguish

independent response to the spectacular suggestiveness of exemplarity is repressed or re-

directed, and its constructive use profoundly compromised.”
81
See Hdt. 4.110–117 on the Amazons, 4.112.1 on their lifestyle, and 4.114.3 on
their lack of knowledge of womanly arts.
82
L. Hardwick (“Ancient Amazons—Heroes, Outsiders or Women?” G&R 37.1
[1990] 34) discusses the Amazons as “emblems of heroic achievement,” whose actions
increase the excellence and heroism of their opponents. See A. Stewart (“Imag(in)ing
the Other: Amazons and Ethnicity in Fifth-Century Athens,” Poetics Today 16.4 [1995]
583–85) on the comparison of Persians to Amazons: this comparison feminizes and thus
denigrates the Persians somewhat, but not so as to make them seem weak.
 Gillespie | The Wolf and the Hare 427

between sex when they grant imperium, but they do recognize gender.83
Under the leadership of Boudica and with the support of the Celtic god-
dess of victory, Andraste, her people may conquer.84 Through categorizing
and evaluating anti-models from different cultures with alternate modes
of leadership, Dio’s Boudica alludes to the efficacy of exempla in histo-
riography. More specifically, she focuses on singular aspects of each in-
dividual that make them anti-models for her current situation. She needs
an active rather than passive approach, a recognized rather than implicit
auctoritas, and an Amazonian, masculine, warrior ethic rather than an ef-
feminate aesthetic. In this episode, Dio’s exempla have a specific narrative
function; rather than commemorating individuals who provide overarch-
ing paradigms of themes common to historiography, Dio’s models provide
a marked contrast to a unique example of female leadership.
The success of Boudica’s speech and her adherence to her prin-
ciples is not as clear in Dio as in Tacitus. Dio’s Boudica dies from
sickness rather than by suicide; she is given a lavish burial, and the
defeated Britons disperse.85 After this conclusion to the affairs in Brit-
ain, Dio returns to Rome, to the exile and death of the empress Octavia
and to Nero’s marriage to the domineering, immoral beauty, Poppaea
Sabina. Boudica’s reflections on gender, power, and the effect of Nero’s
effeminacy on the Roman populace provide a subtle foreshadowing of
events to come in Rome. Dio’s Boudica recognizes characteristics of
poor leadership and presents an alternative model. However, her ulti-
mate loss on the battlefield undermines the power of her words, and
her revolt results in increased Roman activity in Britain rather than the
empowerment of the Britons.86

IV. Conclusion

Both Tacitus and Dio imagine Boudica as an adept judge of character in

her evaluation of historical exempla. Tacitus uses Boudica as an oppor-
tunity to reflect upon the efficacy of exempla of the Roman Republic

83
Tac. Ag. 16.1.
84
On Andate and Andraste, both mentioned by Dio in the Boudica episode, as pos-
sibly the same Celtic goddess of victory, see Adler (above, n.13) 144 n.24.
85
D.C. 62.12.6.
86
See M. Fulford (“Nero and Britain: the Palace of the Client King at Calleva and
Imperial Policy towards the Province after Boudicca,” Britannia 39 [2008] 1–14) on Ne-
ro’s building program and imperial policies in Britain after Boudica’s revolt.
428 Classical World

for rare models of virtus in the early empire. He aligns her values to
those of positive models of Roman history and connects her narrative
to the ongoing theme of libertas in his work. Past models emerge as
potentially useful tools for comparing ideals of the Roman past with
Boudica’s present concerns; the separate historical and cultural situ-
ations, however, are too far removed to provide direct models. For
Tacitus, Boudica provides a test case for the ability of Livian exempla
to adapt to an imperial history. While Boudica aspires to the ideals of
libertas and virtus to earn her place in Tacitus’ text, her femaleness and
foreignness negate her potential as a model for imitation. Boudica’s
otherness allows Tacitus to play with the flexibility of exempla and to
show that exempla in his work are worthy of commemoration even if
they do not conform neatly to positive or negative stereotypes. Boudica
is a dux femina with a mother’s desire for revenge, a model of feminine
virtus fighting against the lustful tyrant of Rome. Her injury is at the
level of the family, but her extreme vengeance requires a response from
her entire people. Tacitus correlates the injustice done to her daugh-
ters with the larger injustice imposed on the Britons under Roman
rule; by extension, his Boudica may earn sympathy from readers who
experienced a principate without libertas themselves. In the end, Boud-
ica’s suicide confirms her characterization as a woman with masculine
courage yet adds a level of ambiguity to her episode, as she, unlike
her Livian models, is unable to achieve victory over her oppressor or
encourage retributive action by her death.
In contrast to Tacitus, Dio’s barbarian queen finds no positive mod-
els of leadership. She defines a categorical difference between modes
of leadership learned from the Romans and her method of leadership
over the Britons. By criticizing female leaders of the past, Boudica draws
attention to the connection between the character of a leader and the
character of those they lead. Her goal to inspire the Britons to fight is
reflected in her choice of anti-models, who failed to promote a simi-
lar warrior ethos. She warns her audience to consider the characters of
those granted power, and to realize that these figures have the ability to
change the character of a people.
In each of her narratives, Boudica recalls a number of models com-
memorated in historical texts. Boudica’s citation of political bodies ex-
tends from Rome to Babylon and from records of early history through
her Neronian present, as she tests models of leadership and voices
of freedom. Through Boudica, Tacitus and Dio reflect upon power
 Gillespie | The Wolf and the Hare 429

relationships in Rome and ideas of gender that inform them. She asks her
audience to consider the value in distinguishing between masculine and
feminine, rather than male and female, in honoring virtus and granting
authority. As Dio’s Boudica calls the Britons to fight, she compares the
Romans to hares and foxes attempting to rule over dogs and wolves.87
In her estimation, the Britons are the hunters, fierce protectors of their
families and guardians of their territory.88 They are wolves, working to-
gether to destroy and devour the weak.89 The Britons are the masculine
aggressors, and Boudica deserves her place as the alpha.90

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY
[email protected]

87
D.C. 62.5.6: ἀλλ’ ἴωμεν ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ θαρροῦντες. δείξωμεν αὐτοῖς ὅτι
λαγωοὶ καὶ ἀλώπεκες ὄντες κυνῶν καὶ λύκων ἄρχειν ἐπιχειροῦσιν. (“Therefore, let us go
against them trusting boldly to good fortune. Let us show them that they are hares and
foxes trying to rule over dogs and wolves”).
88
On the image of the dog as both hunter and protector in Celtic culture, see
Collingridge (above, n.5) 238.
89
The image of a wolf appeared on coinage of the Iceni contemporary with Claudius
and Nero. See Webster (above, n.5) 47–48 and Aldhouse-Green (above, n.5) 23 fig.1.2
and 24 fig. 1.3, who notes (24) that “The choice of emblem may have a bearing on the
self-presentation of this particular tribe: the wolf is both a wild creature, a potential enemy
to humans, and also lives and hunts in packs; it therefore may have acted as a symbol of
independent solidarity.”
90
This article was first presented as part of the Women’s Classical Caucus panel
on “Provincial Women in the Roman Imaginary” at the 2014 meeting of the American
Philological Association (now the Society for Classical Studies). I owe thanks to my fellow
panel members and responders, to Cynthia Damon and Jen Gerrish, and to CW’s editors
and anonymous referees for their thoughtful questions, comments, and suggestions for the
improvement of this study.