Talk:Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Caratacus's brother 2 Disputed 3 Note 4 Togi?

[edit] Caratacus's brother

WikiRat: there are precisely two sources for Cogidubnus - Tacitus's Agricola and an inscription from Chichester. Neither mention any relationship to Caratacus. Claiming they were brothers can only be conjecture and cannot be presented as fact. --Nicknack009 20:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. However, I'm not convinced that references to "Codidubnus" or Togidumnus are anything but references which corrupt the name "Togodumnus" (who WAS Caratacus' brother). The issue then becomes - is there evidence that these two references are different people, and not one and the same apart from the assumption they weren't or the Roman claim they killed Caratacus's brother in battle? Is there evidence that the Romans did not mis-translate 'Togodumnus' as 'Togidumnus' or 'Codidubnus' in Tacitus's Agricola.

Consider the following:

Togodumnus and Togidumnus are contemporary, and you must admit have very similar names. Furthermore, you yourself write that Togidumnus's palace was found in the territory of the Atrebates which was the very region that Caratacus himself completed the conquest of when he completed the conquest of the Atrebates.

Does it really seem likely that a man not related to Caratacus, having a strikingly similiar name to Caratacus' brother, having a palace in a land that Caratacus conquerored, would be given rulership by Rome over what was once Caractaus' based primarily on the Roman claim that they killed a kings brother in battle? Doesn't that seem speculative?

It is more likely that Rome, by giving what was once ruled by Caratacus to Togidumnus (his brother), was both continuing to recognize Caratacus' family's claim to the thrown (in the name of having their client king recognized as legitimate), and was reducing the chances of having their rule in Britain questioned (the Romans weren't stupid and must have considered how many problems they encountered conquering the British).

I am trying to find evidence that Togodumnus and Togidumnus are separate individuals. The striking similarity between their names, their almost perfect geographic and temporal co-existence very strongly suggests the two were one and the same. The chance that these two weren't one and the same is just too unlikely. Simply Citing that different Romans sources have these two meeting different ends (one dying, the other living as client king) isn't sufficient. The Roman claim Caratacus's brother was killed at the battle of the Thames isn't convincing. The Romans have claimed many other untrue things.

I can see why you think this is conjecture, but no more so than assuming because the classical sources cite different ends to these two, they must not have been the same person despite the abundant similarities. Could you provide me with further info about the early references so that I might check them out myself? Could you also provide me with evidence that Claudia is connected with Cogidubnus rather than Caratacus' brother Togodumnus? WikiRat 18:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, from this translation of Tacitus' Agricola the name appears Cogidumnus not Cogidubnus making your argument even less unlikely. -- WikiRat 18:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me put this simply. The only sources for the existence of Togodumnus and/or Cogidubnus do not support them being the same person. Where else can we go with this? I'm well aware that neither Tacitus nor Dio Cassius are infallible, so I have added a bit to both articles explaining that, based on the sources, they are unlikely to be the same person, which open leaves the possibility that they might have been if you're prepared to discount what those sources say. But there are further arguments that they were separate individuals.

Interpreting classical texts in the light of numismatic evidence, it appears there were two major kingdoms in south-eastern Britain in the run-up to the conquest, one in the east ruled by Tasciovanus and his descendants, identified by the name Catuvellauni, and one in the centre-south, ruled by Commius and his descendants and identified by the name Atrebates. Kent, in the south-east corner, seems to have changed hands between them at various times. The Roman conquest was launched in support of Verica, king of the Atrebates, who was exiled apparently due to agression by Caratacus of the Catuvellauni. The first stage of the campaign was to conquer the territory of the Catuvellauni and put it under direct Roman rule, and to restore the native monarchy of the Atrebates for a generation or more. In the latter part of the 1st century its monarch was Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus. Is it likely that, after intervening in support of the Atrebatian king and conquering the Catuvellauni, the Romans would put a Catuvellaunian king over the Atrebates? It doesn't make political sense. It is more likely that Cogidubnus was a relative of Verica, and that the Romans either installed him as a friendly king or restored Verica, who was later succeeded by Cogidubnus.

If you read the Cogidubnus article, you'll see that in some manuscripts of the Agricola his name was even written Togidumnus. However the Chichester inscription, set up by the man himself, makes it clear that the consonant was a b, not an m. He is usually called Cogidubnus to avoid confusion because he is generally considered to be a different person.

As far as Claudia is concerned, I've said this before but you obviously haven't understood, so I'll explain it as simply as I can. Claudia is a Roman name, and more than that it's a Roman gens name. A gens was an extended family or clan, and the Claudii were a very prominent gens who contributed two emperors and numerous other important politicians. Every male member of the clan was called Claudius, usually with one or two other names, and every female member was called Claudia. Freed slaves became members of their their former owner's clan, and foreigners given Roman citenzenship became members of the emperor's clan, and took the appropriate name. Women could not be citizens, so Claudia must have been either the daughter of someone called Claudius or the freed slave of someone called Claudius or Claudia. She couldn't have got the name any other way. Cogidubnus is known to have been called Claudius, and he is therefore put forward as likely to be related to her. Togodumnus is not known to have been called Claudius, and is therefore a less likely candidate. As I've explained, there are any number of possibilities, and as Martial doesn't specify there's no way of proving any of them.

Where there are many options, you can't simply pick which one you'd prefer to be true, discount any evidence or argument against it, and then claim it as fact. You have to present the possibilities and argue which of them, if any, are more likely. I have tried to do that. In the interests of neutrality I have tried to accommodate the "Pope Linus was Caratacus's son" theory by reference to the evidence, while making clear that it is only plausible conjecture. If you have any further evidence to present or argument to make, you are free to do so (hint: "you can't disprove it" is not an argument). But please don't charge in and merge articles that are separate for a good reason. Keeping them separate allows all possibilities, merging them denies all but one. --Nicknack009 19:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Addition to the above. Caratacus and other (sadly unnamed) members of his family (his wife and daughter were captured and his brother surrendered after his final defeat) continued to resist the Roman conquest for another nine years. Does that sound like the Romans legitimised their rule or kept them onside? --Nicknack009 19:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Surely Verica had long been Rome's recognised king in the region? Frere goes so far as to describe Cogidubnus not only as a successor to, but also as a kinsman of the expelled Atrebatic ruler (rather than as a relative of Caratacus). He also adds that: Julio-Claudian policy was normally against the perpetuation, without good reason, of client kingdoms by succession, but in this case there were special circumstances - the old age of Verica, the evident philo-Romanism of Cogidubnus (who had himself perhaps been an exile in Rome) and the political obligation inherent in having supported Verica's cause (Britannia p53). We only have later evidence that Cogidubnus called himself rex magnus, implying rule over multiple kingdoms. Could he not have begun as a rightful ruler of the Atrebatic kingdom and later had his kingdom expanded to earn that title? Cunliffe attributes such a grant to a grateful Vespasian, who let's face it, would have had little sympathy for the family of Cunobelin. Also, what was Dio Cassius' motivation in reporting Togodumnus' death? It's not as though his perishing is reported as part of a great battle but rather it's tagged on to the end of an apparent lull in hostilities and given as a valid reason for a renewed native defence, Plautius' heistation and the arrival of Claudius. To my mind, even though Rome evntually fell in love with Caratacus I don't see why they would trust his brother over the man himself.adamsan 19:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, coins indicate that Verica was the last king of the Atrebates before the conquest. He styled himself a son of Commius, and Commius was active in 57 BC, so Verica must have been pretty old by the time of the conquest (providing of course he was his natural son and not a descendant or adopted heir). He also styled himself "Rex" ("king" in Latin), indicating he was a recognised ally/client of Rome.

Standard diplomatic practice in those days was for allies to exchange obsides (diplomatic hostages), who were normally adolescents and young men of the nobility. John Creighton's Coins and Power in Late Iron Age Britain argues from the imagery on his coins that Verica's big brother Tincomarus was an obses under Augustus, compares his coins with those of Juba II of Numidia (who we know was an obses under Augustus), and identifies what may be a coin of Verica found in Numidia. My favoured interpretation is that Cogidubnus was a leading member of the Atrebates nobility, brought up as an obses in Rome. Verica was exiled some time before the conquest in 43 (possibly even before Caligula's attempted invasion). By the time the invasion actually went ahead he was too old to take part himself, possibly even dead, so they took Cogidubnus with them and set him up in Verica's place. Obsides made very good client kings, and since Verica's exile was the pretext for the conquest, they could hardly just annex his territory, so they restored someone of his line to the throne. Cogidubnus's relationship with Verica is conjecture, but it seems the most plausible interpretation to me (and, as you say, to Frere). Other interpretations are possible of course, and there are certainly some who favour Togodumnus and Cogidubnus being the same man, but to me the preponderance of evidence is against it. Tacitus implies that Cogidubnus pretty well known to Romans, and I can't see Dio getting away with claiming he died in 43 if it was well known he didn't.

As far as I know the rex magnus bit comes from the Chichester inscription, which is contemporary with the events and therefore the oldest evidence for the man we have. Tacitus says he was given several kingdoms to rule in return for his loyalty. --Nicknack009 21:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I found someone who has written on this, that agrees it is likely Togodumnus and Cogidubnus are the same person. Professor Barry Cunliffe's book on Fishbourne Roman Palace argues that the two were one and the same. He is considered a credible expert by most. Here is a review of his book. Given that this idea isn't something I made up since there is at least one scholars who agrees, can you guys agree perhaps that a review of this article is necessary is necessary?. WikiRat 17:37, 3 November 2005 (EST)

Is that better? --Nicknack009 18:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. WikiRat 12:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

I am adding the disputed tag to the part that relates Cogidubnus to Claudia Rufina and Rufus Pudens Pudentianna. Martial announces to Rufus the marriage of Claudia, but says nothing more. --Panairjdde 16:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Martial names the man she's marrying as "my Pudens", which can only be Aulus Pudens, a centurion he dedicates a number of his poems to. However "Rufus Pudens Pudentianna" is imaginary, created by taking the Rufus named in Romans as sharing a mother with Paul, combining him with the Pudens named in 2 Timothy, arbitrarily declaring them to be the same man, and adding an impossible "Pudentianna" on the end for no reason I can see. He's a pious fantasy and I've nominated him for deletion. --Nicknack009 12:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Here is a passage from MURGIA, Ch.E., The Minor works of Tacitus : a study in textual criticism in Classical Philology, 72, 1977, p.339 :

"In Agricola 14.1.28 E, all its descendants, and all editors give the name of a Celtic king of Britain as Cogidumnus, and from this passage, two inscriptions have been restored (CIL.7.11 and 13.1040), in both of which the first two letters of the name are missing. E* gives Togidumnus, ignored by all its descendants and all editors. Yet Togidumnus must be right. The unfamiliar combining form Togi- was changed to the latin word Cogi-. In Celtic names, Cogi- lacks good attestation, while Togi- is very common. Further, the name Togidumnus is probably found, through Dio as transmitted (60.20.1 and 21.1) gives Togodumnos (Togidumnus - Glück). Note that whereas in Greek a normal combining vowel is -o-, in Latin the normal equivalent is -i-. Therefore, Togodumnos is a Greek lectio facilior, and wrong. If, as Dio seems to indicate, Togidumnos died around AD43, he could not be the same as Tacitus' Togidumnus, but there is not reason why there could not have been two Celts of the same name - probably members of the same dynastic family."

[edit] Togi?

Lollipop for anyone who can find the source for this - I know it's true and attested somewhere, but I can't find it Neddyseagoon 16:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)neddyseagoon