From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 (68 page)

1 SOURCES FOR TIBERIUS (A.D. 14–37). The chief literary sources are Velleius Paterculus, ii, 123–31, a contemporary who is favourable to Tiberius; (see A. J.
Woodman,
Velleius Paterculus, The Tiberian Narrative (2.94–131)
(1977); Tacitus,
Annals
, I–VI (most of book V is missing), edited by H. Furneaux (1907); F. R. D. Goodyear,
The Annals of Tacitus, I, II
(1972 and 1981); Suetonius,
Tiberius
; Dio Cassius, lvii–lviii. On the Julio–Claudian historians see J. J. Wilkes,
Cl. W.
, 1972, vol. 65, 177 ff. Suetonius,
Tiberius
; Dio Cassius, lvii–lviii. Documents: Ehrenberg and Jones,
Documents
. Coins: works cited in note to ch. XI, n. 1, and M. Grant,
Aspects of the Principate of Tiberius
(1950). Iconography: L. Polacco,
Il Volto di Tiberio
(1955); cf.
JRS
, 1956, 157 ff. Modern works include F. B. Marsh,
The Reign of Tiberius
(1931); R. S. Rogers,
Criminal Trials under Tiberius
(1935); D. M. Pipidi,
Autout de Tibère
(1944); G. Marañon’s
Tiberius, A Study in Resentment
(1956) is popular and unreliable; R. Syme,
Tacitus
(1958), especially 420 ff.;
Tiberius
(1960) by E. Kornemann is a very subjective assessment; R. Seager,
Tiberius
(1972) and cf. R. Syme,
Historia
, 1974, 481 ff.; B. Levick,
Tiberius the Politician
(1976). Tacitus’ attitude to Tiberius, especially in regard to the problems of his accession, is discussed by K. von Fritz,
Cl. Ph.
, 1957, 78 ff. For the problem of the transmission of power under the Julio–Claudians see D. Timpe,
Untersuchungen zur Kontinuität des frühen Prinzipats
(1962). On the whole period from Tiberius to Nero see the very useful book by A. Garzetti,
From Tiberius to the Antonines
(1974); the English translation of this work which was published in Italian in 1960 provides long critical notes and bibliographies which have been brought up to date to 1969. See also G. Downey, ‘Tiberiana’,
Aufstieg
, II, ii, 95 ff. and J. P. V. D. Balsdon on the principates of Tiberius and Gaius,
id.
, 86 ff. [p. 227]

2 DIES IMPERII. See G. Kampff,
Phoenix
, 1963, 25 ff, and K. Wellesley,
JRS
, 1967, 23 ff., who has argued that the
dies imperii
, the day on which Tiberius accepted the Principate at the hands of the Senate, was not 17 Sept., the day when divine honours were voted to Augustus, but rather early in Sept. before the 4th. Rejected by R. Seager,
Tiberius
(1972), 55. On the beginning of Tiberius’ reign see D. Flach,
Historia
, 1973, 552 ff. [p. 228]

3 JULIANS AND CLAUDIANS. The so-called Julio–Claudian dynasty (Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius and Nero) were all related by blood to Augustus or Livia. Members of the imperial house with closer connexions with the Julian
gens
may have enjoyed greater popularity in some circles: thus some people would turn more readily to Germanicus who had more Julian connexions through his mother than to Tiberius’ own son Drusus, who was a pure Claudian. But these differences should not be over-rated. B. Levick,
Gr. and R.
, 1975, 29 ff., points out that ‘Julians’ and ‘Claudians’ did not accurately describe groups, since because of adoption the Julians were divided. On the relations of Germanicus and Drusus see W. Allen,
TAPA
, 1941, 1 ff., and M. Stuart,
Cl. Ph.
, 1940, 64 ff. [p. 228]

4 THE NORTHERN CAMPAIGNS OF GERMANICUS. For an evaluation of these see E. Koestermann,
Historia
, 1957, 429 ff., and D. Timpe,
Der Triumph des Germanicus: Untersuchungen zu den Feldzugen der Jahre 14–16 n. Chr. in Germanien
(1968). Timpe argues that the decreeing of a triumph for Germanicus at the end of 15 shows that Tiberius regarded the war as completed and that the emperor disapproved of Germanicus’ continued aggressive campaign in 16. [p. 229]

5 edict of germanicus. See Ehrenberg and Jones,
Documents
, n. 320b; translation in Lewis and Reinhold,
Rn. Civ.
ii. p. 562. Another edict (n. 320a; Lewis, p. 229) deprecates requisitioning. Interesting light is thrown on Germanicus’ visit to Egypt by a recently published papyrus: see E. G. Turner,
Oxyrhynchus Papyri
, xxv (1959), n. 2435. It gives Germanicus’ speech on arrival at Alexandria (punctuated by applause) and also the official designation of his command. On this Turner comments: ‘Germanicus clearly treats Egypt as an
=
provincia
, Tiberius did not.’ On Germanicus in the
East see E. Koestermann,
Historia
, 1958, 331 ff. See also Weingaertner,
Die Aegyptenreise des Germanicus
(1969). [p. 229]

6 GERMANICUS’ POPULARITY. This is further attested by the extravagant honours voted to him after his death which are recorded in the Tabula Hebana (Ehrenberg and Jones,
Documents
, n. 94a; see ch. XI, n. 26). See S. Weinstock,
JRS
, 1957, 144 ff. D. C. A. Shotter,
Historia
, 1968, 194 ff., discusses Tacitus’ account of Germanicus’ career under Tiberius. On Tacitus’ portrait of Germanicus see now S. Borzsat,
Latomus
, 1969, 588 ff. On Piso see D. C. A. Shotter,
Historia
, 1974, 229 ff. [p. 230]

7 THE SENATE AND ELECTIONS. It is known that the system of
destinatio
which had been put in the hands of ten centuries of senators and knights, continued (see p. 190); five new centuries were created in honour of Germanicus in A.D. 19 (Tabula Hebana) and another five in honour of Drusus in A.D. 23 (Ehrenberg and Jones,
Documents
²
, n. 94b). At the same time the well-known statement of Tacitus (
Ann.
i, 15) that ‘tum primum e campo comitia ad patres translata sunt’ must be accepted. Perhaps (as suggested by G. Tibiletti) the result of the
destinatio
by the centuries, hitherto advisory, now bound the People, to whom the presiding magistrate would nominate no other names; in this case the equites will have been eliminated from the destinating assembly, probably before the end of Tiberius’ reign. Alternatively (as suggested by A. H. M. Jones,
JRS
, 1955, 19) Tiberius may have proposed that the Senate should itself settle who should be candidates and should limit the number to equal the number of places to be filled: thus the elections both by the centuries and by the Comitia would become a formality. See also R. Syme,
Tacitus
(1958), 756 ff. and M. Pani,
Comitia e Senato: sulla transformazione della procedura ellettorale in Roma nell’età di Tiberio
(1974); cf. E. S. Staveley,
JRS
, 1975, 201. The view that Tiberius did not exercise
commendatio
for the consulship has been questioned by M. L. Paladini,
Athenaeum
, 1959, 120 f. but see B. Levick,
Historia
, 1967, 207 ff., quoted above ch. XI, n. 25. See also W. K. Lacey,
Historia
, 1963, 167 ff., and D. C. A. Shotter,
Cl. Qu.
, 1966, 321 ff. R. Syme,
Historia
, 1981, 189 ff., shows that the consuls of A.D. 15–19 were not an outstanding group of men: Tiberius tended to favour the advancement of the consuls elected in Augustus’ last decade. [p. 231]

8 TIBERIUS AND MAIESTAS. See F. B. Marsh, R. S. Rogers, R. Seager and B. Levick
op. cit.
, n. 1; R. A. Bauman,
Impietas in Principem
(1974); on the
lex Iulia maiestatis
see J. E. Allison and J. D. Cloud,
Latomus
, 1962, 711 ff. and for the penalties laid down by this law see B. M. Levick,
Historia
, 1979, 358 ff. C. W. Chilton has argued (
JRS
, 1955, 73 ff.) against Rogers that the only penalty laid down under the
lex Iulia de maiestate
was exile (interdictio aquae et ignis) with or without confiscation of property. Thus the death sentence, which was often exacted in Tiberius’ later years, represented an extension of the penalty, imposed arbitrarily by the court (normally the Senate’s rather than the emperor’s court). In 21, while Tiberius was away from Rome, a Roman knight, Clutorius Priscus, was condemned by the Senate and was at once executed: on his return, Tiberius commended the only senator who had advocated exile in place of death, and caused the Senate to pass a decree ordering ten days interval between a death sentence and its execution. For the reply of R. S. Rogers to Chilton’s criticism of his views see
JRS
, 1959, 90 ff. Charges of treason were often added to other charges, e.g. when C. Silanus, a former proconsul of Asia, was accused of extortion in 22. Some treason trials arose from factional politics within the Senate and nobility. Tiberius refused to admit the charge of
maiestas
against Aemilia Lepida in 20, but she was convicted on other charges: for the trial see G. B. Townend,
Latomus
, 1962, 484 ff., D. C. A. Shotter,
Historia
, 1966, 312 ff. for C. Silius’ trial in 24 see Shotter,
Latomus
, 1967, 712. See in general B. Walker,
The Annals of
Tacitus
, 82 ff. On the trial of Libo Drusus see D. C. A. Shotter,
Historia
, 1972, 88 ff. [p. 232]

9 DRUSUS. See R. S. Rogers,
Studies in the Reign of Tiberius
(1943), 89 ff. [p. 233]

9a SPERLONGA. The grotto is almost certainly modern Sperlonga, where a dining-table (
triclinium
) and fine sculptures of mythological figures have been found. These illustrate Tiberius’ taste in sculpture and his literary leanings (cf. Suetonius,
Tib.
70): see A. F. Stewart,
JRS
, 1977, 76 ff. [p. 233]

10 LIVIA (JULIA AUGUSTA). Intelligent, beautiful and dignified, Livia had exercised a good influence on Augustus. The tradition about her in Tacitus derives from the propaganda of her enemies. Though she may have become somewhat masterful, the hints that she had any part in the deaths of Marcellus, Gaius and Lucius Caesar, Augustus or Germanicus, should be dismissed as pure scandal. [p. 233]

11 SJANUS. On his family and friends see Z. Stewart,
AJP
, 1953, 70 ff., F. Adams,
AJP
, 1955, 70 ff., G. V. Sumner,
Phoenix
, 1965, 134 ff.; R. Sealey,
Phoenix
, 1961, 97 ff. for his political attachments; H. W. Bird,
Latomus
, 1969, 61 ff. The seriousness of his conspiracy (or even its existence) has been variously assessed (in the letter from Capreae, as recorded by Dio Cassius, Sejanus is not specifically charged with a plot to murder Tiberius). Sejanus possibly did not desire the death of Tiberius before he himself had received
tribunicia potestas
and his succession was reasonably assured. Thus F. B. Marsh (
The Reign of Tiberius
, 394 ff.) and others are more sceptical than e.g. R. S. Rogers. On Dio’s silence see E. Koestermann,
Hermes
, 1955, 350 ff. and R. Syme,
Tacitus
, 725 ff. A. Boddington (
AJP
, 1963, 1 ff.) attributes Sejanus’ fall to a powerful group of his opponents who forced Tiberius to abandon him. An inscription from Alba Fucens (
L’Année epigraphique
, 1957, n. 250) has revealed Macro’s true name as Q. Naevius Sutorius Macro and the fact that he had been Praefectus Vigilum; this may help to explain how he was able to move against Sejanus with such success. On Macro see F. de Visscher,
Mélanges Piganiol
(1966), 761 ff., and
Synteleia Arangio-Ruiz
(1966), 54 ff. On Sejanus see further, D. Hennig,
L. Aelius Seianus. Untersuchungen zur Regierung des Tiberius
(1975), while J. Nicols,
Historia
, 1975, 48 ff., argues that Antonia Minor had no connections with Sejanus before 31 and her alleged links with his fall are Claudian and Flavian inventions. [p. 234]

12 FOREIGN POLICY. For a brief assessment of Tiberius’ policy see G. Alfoldy,
Latomus
, 1965, 824 ff. [p. 234]

13 ARTABANUS. See U. Kahrstedt,
Artabanos und seine Erben
(1950). For the suggestion that the meeting with Vitellius fell in 37 after Tiberius’ death see A. Garzetti,
Studi Calderini
, I (1956), 211 ff. [p. 235]

14 THE DRUIDS. See H. Last,
JRS
, 149, pp. 1 ff., for the view that what brought Rome into conflict with Druidism was not that it fostered disloyalty but that it preserved savage practices that were regarded as incompatible with the standards of civilization that Rome wished to see in her Empire. The suppression of Druidism in Gaul is assigned by Pliny (
NH
, xxx, 13) to Tiberius, by Suetonius (
Div. Claud.
25) to Claudius. On Florus and Sacrovir see L. Bessone,
Num. Ant. Class. Ticens.
, 1978, 143 ff. [p. 235]

15 TACFARINAS AND THE MUSULAMII. See R. Syme,
Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in Honour of A. C. Johnson
(1951), 113 ff. For a dedication to Victoria Augusta by P. Cornelius Dolabella on Tacfarinas’ death see R. Bartoccini,
Epigraphica
, 1958, 3 ff. [p. 236]