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

by H. H. Scullard

  contemporaries may have branded as another ‘adulescentulus carnifex’, grew into a balanced and revered Pater Patriae. But behind all outward change the sources of his power continued unaltered. His personal character remains somewhat enigmatic. If he was superstitious, this did not deflect his judgement. Cautious and shrewd, in his private life he could be friendly and even homely, always preferring simplicity to luxury. Though he lacked the personal magnetism of Julius Caesar, he yet secured the enduring loyalty of his friends whose qualities supplemented some of his defects. The ruthlessness of youth was replaced by an unshakable sense of duty and a determination to achieve what he believed to be in the interests of his country, despite many a setback and ill-health; proceeding by trial and error, he succeeded where a more doctrinaire approach would have led to disaster. He thus exemplifies the common-sense practical point of view of an Italian of the upper middle-class from the countryside from which his family stock derived. He may have lacked deep spiritual insight and have regarded the attainment of law and order as a higher ideal than the promotion of human liberties, and he clearly was not a man of genius in the sense that Julius Caesar had been, but his talents matched the desperate needs of his day. However Rome might develop in the future, her immediate need was peace without which there might be no future for the Roman world. That peace he secured, and with it he laid the foundations for the romanization of western Europe, which is his most enduring monument. His hope was not in vain: ‘Ita mihi salvam ac sospitem rem publicam sistere in sua sede liceat atque eius rei fructum percipere quem peto, ut optimi status auctor dicar et moriens ut feram mecum spem, mansura in vestigio suo fundamenta rei publicae quae iecero’ (Suetonius, Augustus, 28). ‘So may I be allowed to establish the State in a safe and secure position and gather from that act the fruit that I seek, that I may be called the author of the best government, and carry with me the hope, when I die, that the foundations which I have laid for the State will remain unmoved’.26

  XIII

  TIBERIUS AND GAIUS

  1. THE ACCESSION OF TIBERIUS1

  Tiberius, the son born in 42 B.C. to Ti. Claudius Nero and Livia, had lived through many changes of fortune. First, he became the stepson of Octavian who had married his mother after her divorce from Claudius in 38. With his younger brother Drusus he had been granted many privileges by Augustus whom he had accompanied on journeys both to the West and East; in 20 he had received the lost standards from the Parthians. He then served with distinction on the northern frontier, and held the consulship first in 13 and again in 7 B.C. But he had been compelled to divorce his wife Vipsania Agrippina (daughter of Agrippa and the mother of his son Drusus) whom he loved, in order to marry Augustus’ daughter Julia (Agrippa’s widow) in 11 B.C.; this marriage was not successful. He was given tribunicia potestas for five years in 6 B.C. and was offered a diplomatic mission in the East, but to Augustus’ annoyance Tiberius preferred to retire to Rhodes where he passed eight years in virtual exile; dislike of his wife and a growing realization that he had been forced to marry her only in order to protect the interests of her children, the princes Gaius and Lucius, will have contributed to his decision. He enjoyed the cultural life of the island, until through Livia’s help he was enabled to return to Rome, though not to the favour of Augustus, in A.D. 2. Two years later the scene had changed dramatically: the two heirs apparent were dead, and once again Augustus’ plans had been brought to nought. He therefore turned again, though with reluctance, to his stepson Tiberius, who was adopted as his son, received tribunicia potestas for ten years, and was granted a special command (proconsular imperium) on the northern frontier; but even so he was compelled to adopt his nephew Germanicus as his son, though he already had a son of his own, Drusus. Then came years of fine military service which put the Roman world deeply in his debt, when he crushed the revolts in Pannonia and Illyricum and then saved the situation on the German front after the disaster to Varus. After his return to Rome he triumphed in A.D. 12, and in the following year his tribunician power was prolonged and he received proconsular imperium like that held by the emperor: he became in fact almost a co-regent, though he lacked above all the auctoritas of Augustus.

  He might therefore appear an ideal successor: he had shown skill in diplomacy and brilliance in war; he was popular with the army, the first and indispensable need for any successor; nor did he lack experience of civil administration. But his character was not well adapted to his task. Silent and reserved by nature, often obscure and ambiguous in expression, he appeared severe and suspicious to many. His innate diffidence and his family pride (the Claudii had an ancient reputation for superbia) were aggravated by his experience of having been set aside by Augustus and adopted by him only as a last resort. Thus when he became Princeps, he was already disillusioned, soured and embittered.

  The life-work of Augustus might easily have been undone if his powers could not be transmitted smoothly to another: there must be no long dispute that would open again the flood-gates of civil war. He had not, it is true, attempted to establish any law of succession (this would have offended the nobility too deeply), but his more circuitous method in practice worked out well. The only conceivable rivals to Tiberius were Agrippa Postumus, whom Augustus had adopted in A.D. 4, and Germanicus. The latter, as will be seen, was easily controlled; Postumus, whom Augustus himself had exiled because of his depraved character, was killed immediately after the death of Augustus. This was perhaps done on the order of Augustus and even without the knowledge of Tiberius, though Tacitus blamed Tiberius.

  Augustus died on 19 August A.D. 14, but Tiberius allowed no constitutional adjustment until after the funeral, at which an eagle was released from the burning pyre to denote the flight of Augustus’ spirit to join the gods. On 17 September the Senate met: Augustus was deified as Divus Augustus, with a temple and priests; Livia, who under Augustus’ will became by adoption Julia Augusta, was voted honours; and it was proposed that Tiberius should keep his tribunican power and proconsular imperium for life, together with such other powers as Augustus had enjoyed. This last offer Tiberius at first declined (according to Velleius, he preferred to be an ‘aequalis civis’ rather than an ‘eminens princeps’), but his apparent reluctance was at length overborn; by accepting, he became Princeps.2 In the description of this scene painted by Tacitus the hesitation of Tiberius is attributed to hypocrisy, but it may well have been genuine. He was fifty-five years old, and rule would involve heavy responsibilities if not dangers. He was to show himself a loyal follower of the example of Augustus, and so he may have been mindful that Augustus himself in 27 B.C. had hesitated before accepting full control. The fact that he was a member of the Claudian and not the Julian gens by birth may not have affected his popularity very deeply,3 but he would be glad if his accession should be seen to derive from the pressure of the Senate. Further, he may have felt that he lacked the necessary tact and adaptability to maintain the delicate balance between Princeps and Senate. And even when accepting, Tiberius added the hope that he might be relieved of the task in his old age. But if he hesitated before the Senate, even though already fortified by an oath of loyalty which the consuls had taken and had administered to the Senate, Equites and People, he nevertheless acted firmly within the sphere of his proconsular imperium: he issued orders to the Praetorian Guard and informed provincial governors that he was their new superior. Thus by a mixture of firmness and tact the dangerous corner was rounded.

  2. GERMANICUS

  Although all was quiet on the home front, two mutinies broke out among the troops on the Danube and the Rhine. These arose from grievances about terms of service (more pay, shorter terms of service and less bullying by officers were demanded); they were aggravated by the fact that in the emergencies of the Pannonian revolt and Varian disaster many ex-slaves had been drafted into the legions. Their political significance, if any, was slight, since they were not protests against Tiberius personally. The mutiny in Pannonia was crushed by Tiberius’ own son, Drusus, who was
enabled by a convenient eclipse of the moon to work on the superstitions of the rebels. The Rhine frontier was the responsibility of Germanicus, who was governor of the three Gauls and commander of the armies on the Rhine. The revolt was confined to the army group in Lower Germany, but there was a risk that these men might try to thrust Germanicus on the throne. He remained, however, loyal to Tiberius and after some rather theatrical efforts he succeeded in quelling the mutiny.

  Germanicus, the son of Tiberius’ popular brother Drusus, was himself well-liked. Young and handsome (he was now twenty-eight), he was quite ready to emulate his father’s exploits on the northern front; he may also have felt that the best remedy for the recent discontents would be a series of campaigns. However that may be, he led his troops over the Rhine at first without direct authorization from Tiberius and proceded to re-conquer the territory between it and the Elbe. In A.D. 14 he advanced from Vetera along the Lippe against a tribe called the Marsi. In 15 he advanced from Moguntiacum against the Chatti, rescued the pro-Roman chieftain Segestes from his hostile son-in-law Arminius, and executed a converging move to the Amisia (Ems), where he himself brought four legions by sea. He then visited the Teutoburgian Forest and buried the remains of Varus’ troops, but as he withdrew for the winter he suffered losses in men and still more in stores from floodtides in the North Sea, while the army of his lieutenant Caecina further south was harassed by Arminius. He then prepared a great fleet for the campaign of 16 when he sailed through the lakes of Holland to the Amisia; advancing thence to the Visurgis (Weser), he fought Arminius at Idistaviso (probably near Minden) but even a second engagement led to no decisive result, and his fleet suffered loss on its return.

  Despite his attempts to overcome transport difficulties, Germanicus had in three campaigns advanced and then retreated: he had failed to create conditions which would have enabled him to remain in Germany throughout the year. At this point Tiberius recalled him, not unreasonably. To Tacitus, who admired Germanicus and disliked Tiberius, this action was due to Tiberius’ jealousy, but more probably it was based on a sound appreciation of the position. Germanicus had restored Roman prestige and thereby strengthened the Rhine frontier, and this was probably the reason why Tiberius had allowed the campaigns so far. To have attempted once again to establish the frontier on the Elbe would have involved disregarding the policy (consilium) of Augustus which Tiberius regarded as a praeceptum, together with great expense and the reduction of Maroboduus. Further, Tiberius saw that it was unnecessary, since internal dissensions beyond the Rhine would keep the district weak, as in fact came about: the Chatti and Cherusci were continually quarrelling, and Arminius warred with Maroboduus until the latter was driven into exile (A.D. 19); Arminius himself was assassinated in 21. Thus Tiberius’ decision was justified, and Germanicus can have had little real ground for complaint when he was accorded a magnificent triumph in A.D. 17, given maius imperium over all the eastern provinces, and granted a consulship with Tiberius in 18.4

  Unrest in the East, where amongst other changes the Parthian king had expelled the Roman nominee from the throne of Armenia (p. 209), required firm handling by a high official. Thus Germanicus’ appointment was no empty compliment. At the same time Tiberius sent out a new governor to Syria, a certain Cn. Calpurnius Piso who had been consul with him in 7 B.C., in place of a friend of Germanicus: it would do no harm for Germanicus to be watched by a man of independent spirit even though of inferior status. Tiberius did not want ambition for military glory to lead Germanicus to start another war with Parthia. When he reached the East Germanicus reduced Cappadocia and Commagene to provinces and installed a new king in Armenia. He then went on to Egypt, thereby acting illegally since no senator was allowed to enter the country without the emperor’s permission. His purpose may have been the harmless one of visiting the antiquities, but his conduct was tactless. He relieved a famine in Alexandria by releasing some reserve stores and advertised his popular reception by issuing an edict in which he deprecated the warmth of his welcome.5 On his return to Syria where he found that Piso had tried to cancel some of his arrangements, he ordered him to leave the province. No sooner had Piso left than Germanicus died (A.D. 19), firmly believing that he had been poisoned by Piso. After Germanicus’ widow Agrippina had sailed with his ashes to Rome, Piso unwisely re-entered Syria, but was forced to leave by the acting legate.

  Back in Rome Piso was brought to trial, and since the alleged crime related to the adopted son of the Princeps, another court than the ordinary quaestio de veneficis was appropriate. Tiberius referred it to the Senate, where Piso had to face his peers on the double charge of murder and of re-entering his province by force; on the former he cleared himself, but knowing that he could not refute the latter he committed suicide. This episode seriously increased Tiberius’ unpopularity. Rumour alleged that not only had Piso in fact murdered Germanicus but that he had acted on behalf of Tiberius, who wanted his own son Drusus to succeed him. It is true that Tiberius deprecated the fuss that the people had made at the funeral of their hero,6 and neither he nor his mother Livia had attended; further, Livia protected Piso’s wife Plancina from the hostility of Germanicus’ widow Agrippina, whose hatred was now directed against Tiberius. But rumour was clearly false.

  3. THE CIVIL GOVERNMENT OF TIBERIUS

  During the earlier part of Tiberius’ reign the civil administration was, by general consent, excellent. Even his most biting critic, Tacitus, delivers what is almost a panegyric on the years down to the death of Drusus in A.D. 23 (Annals, iv, 6); the only aspects that he can find to criticize are Tiberius’ own ungracious manner and the law of treason. The advantages to which he draws attention include: all public business transacted in the Senate; freedom of debate; sycophancy checked; appointments by merit; dignity of magistrates maintained; laws, except that of treason, well administered; men of character appointed to imperial posts and long maintained in them; protection of provincials; corporal punishment and confiscations unknown; Tiberius’ estates in Italy few, his slaves modest; any disputes that he had with private citizens were decided in the law courts. And it would not be unreasonable to extend these ‘mitia tempora’ until A.D. 26 when Tiberius left Rome for Capreae.

  In his relations with the Senate Tiberius followed the example of Augustus: he genuinely tried to co-operate with it and even extended its administrative duties. He attended its meetings, often consulted it on matters that he might well have settled by himself, took part in debates as an ordinary senator and tried to respect liberty of discussion; he maintained that ‘bonum et salutarem principem senatui servire debere’, and he showed respect to the consuls by rising in their presence and giving way to them in the streets. Such a partnership in government, however, required more than goodwill on both sides: extraordinary tact was needed to hold the delicate balance, and though at first the Senate showed some real independence it soon realized the risk of encroaching too far. Thus the force of circumstances was too heavy for each side to withstand; Tiberius’ early hopes gradually diminished and growing weary he could exclaim, ‘O homines ad servitutem paratos!’ This was not the least of the tragedies of his reign.

  In various spheres the activities of the Senate were enlarged. According to the literary sources the elections were transferred from the People to the Senate in A.D. 14: how in detail this change fitted in with the system of destinatio established by Augustus (p. 193) is uncertain, but some time during Tiberius’ reign any participation by People or Equites in the elections must have been eliminated and the Senate have been left in control.7 The Senate’s choice, however, was in part preconditioned by the emperor’s power to commend or nominate candidates. Candidates who enjoyed his commendatio were elected automatically. Tiberius did not commend more than four men for the twelve praetorships, and commendatio was not at first employed for the consulship though it was extended to this office before the end of Nero’s reign. The emperor could also ‘nominate’ candidates and thus give them more prestige though no legal backing. He
apparently nominated twelve candidates for the praetorship, but since four places were already virtually filled by his commendation, this left the Senate free to choose eight from among the twelve, or from among more if other nominations had been accepted by the presiding magistrate. Though it is unlikely that men of whom the emperor disapproved would be elected, these new elections in the Senate were genuine contests, especially for the consulship, and they eliminated the potential scandal and corruption of elections in the Comitia.

  The judicial functions of the Senate (cf. p. 187) developed further under Tiberius and it gradually became the chief court for treason and criminal offences committed by its members and by prominent equestrians. This had many advantages, not least that the Senate could exercise jurisdiction over the administrators in its own provinces, without the emperor having to intervene directly. Under Tiberius also the Senate passed many senatus consulta. He consulted it often, sometimes even on matters outside its ambit (e.g. the discharge of soldiers) and not least on religious matters, in which he showed an old-fashioned objection to Oriental cults. For instance, a scandal in 19 allowed him to have the image of Isis thrown into the Tiber and her convicted priests crucified; another scandal in the same year led him to persuade the Senate to expel the Jews from Rome and to send four thousand of them on military duty to Sardinia. His dislike of public Games caused the Senate to expel actors from Italy in 23; the number of gladiators to be exhibited was also limited. Tiberius himself of course continued the practice of Augustus in consulting a judicial council and his amici (p. 188 f.), but he displayed great moderation in style: he did not use Imperator as a praenomen, he twice refused the title of Pater Patriae, and above all he avoided the consulship which he held only three times (in 18, 21 and 31), on each occasion to honour his colleague (respectively Germanicus, Drusus and Sejanus).