1969 Sejanus Significance

Societe d’Etudes Latines de Bruxelles
L. Aelius Seianus and his Political Significance

Author(s): H. W. Bird
Source: Latomus, T. 28, Fasc. 1 (JANVIER-MARS 1969), pp. 61-98
Published by: Societe d’Etudes Latines de Bruxelles
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41527344 .
Accessed: 08/05/2014 01:34
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Societe d’Etudes Latines de Bruxelles is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Latomus.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 70.119.188.32 on Thu, 8 May 2014 01:34:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
L. Aeliue Seianue and his Political Significance
Lucius Aelius Seianus was born at Volsinii in Etruria, the son

of L. Seius Strabo (x), prefectof Egypt in 15 and praetorian pre-
fectbeforethis date. Sejanus was probably a coeval, or very nearly,
of the young Caesar, Gaius, who was born in 20 B.C. According
to Tacitus (2), Sejanus attached himself to Gaius prima iuventa
presumably prior to the latter's Istrian command (3) and his east-
ern mission (1 B.C.). There is no unambiguous evidence that
Sejanus accompanied Gaius, but it is likely. Aftera formaleducation
commensurate with his family status he would spend the time
between his assumption of the togavirilisand the age of 17 in some
formof tirocinium (militarytraining,parades), and thereafterwould
probably see service abroad, in all likelihoodon thestaffof the young
Caesar. Thus the indications are that Sejanus was born in 20 or
19 B.C.
Sejanus' father, L. Seius Strabo, held in succession the two
highestequestrian officesand was princepsequestris ordinis(4). More-
over his mother was extremelywell-connected (6), and her brother,
Q.Junius Blaesus(e),had reached the consulship in 10. Presumably,
(1) Tac.,Ann., IV, 1,2 ; VI, 8 ; Dio, 57,19,5 ; Juvenal, X, 4 ; R.E., 1,s.v.Aelius,
no.133; P.I.R.*,1,A, 255. AlldatesareA.D. unless otherwise designated.
(2) Ann.,IV, 1,2. ForthedateofGaius'birth vid. Dio, 54,8, 5.
(3) Dio, 55,10,17. Cf.R. Syme, RomanRevolution
, Oxford, 1952,p. 428,(henceforth
citedas R.R.). SymetakesTacitus'statement Gaium Caesarem sectatus to mean
thatSejanusAccompanied' Gaius.Itcouldequally wellmeanthathe merely 'courted'
Gaius.Velleius, whoserved as Tribune underGaiusintheEast,issilent withregard to
Sejanus'participation,(Vell., II, 101).Cf.T. W.Africa,Rome oftheCaesars, NewYork,
1965,p. 31 if.
(4) Tac.,Ann., I, 24,2 ; VI, 8 ; Dio,57,19,5 ; Vell., II, 127,3 ; R.E.,1,s.v.Sews,no.
15.
(5) Vell., loc.cit.
(6) Ann.,III, 35; 72,4. Cf.Velleius,loc.cit.,whomentions onlyoneconsular uncle
andishardly likely tobeincorrect inhisefforts
toenhance Sejanus, especiallyas hewas
a contemporary ofthelatter.

62 H. W. BIRD
then, Sej anus' mother was a Junia (х), and her nephew, the homo-
nymousson of Q. Junius Blaesus, cos. stiff,in 26, was one of Sejanus'
consular consobrini.Some modern scholars (2) have connected Se-
janus with the revolutionaryVarro Murena (3) and the Cornelii
Lentuli via his supposed mother, Cosconia Gallitta, and have Se-
janus adopted by Q. Aelius Tubero, but it has been recentlyshown
that the old hypothesisof Sejanus' adoption by Aelius Gallus, pre-
fectof Egypt 26-24 B.C. (4), is more likely to be correct. The con-
sular brothers of Sejanus could have been (through adoption) L.
Seius Tubero (cos. suff. 18), Q. Aelius Tubero {cos. ord. 11 B.C.)
and Sextus Aelius Catus {cos.ord.4), the lattertwo being L. Tubero's
fratrespatrueles. Sejanus may also have possessed a sororpatruelis ,
(Aelia), whose husband (5), L. Cassius Longinus, was cos. suff.
in 11 and had two sons,L. Cassius Longinus and C. Cassius Longinus.
These were cos. ord.and cos. suff.respectivelyin 30 and could have
been described, in general terms, as consobrini of Sejanus (e). It is
perhaps indicative of theirtenuous familyconnections with Sejanus
and pro-Tiberian loyalties that the formermarried into the family
of Germanicus in 33 (7).
Sejanus' family connections, however, and his father's high po-
sitionwould ensurea successfulcareer forthe young Sejanus, especial-
ly as he was also connected throughtheJunii Blaesi with the Antonii,
and Antonia possessed no little influence (8). One other interesting
connection remains. Sejanus had been in his youth a favouriteof
the debauched and wealthy Marcus Gavius Apicius, and it was
perhaps throughthisrelationshipthat he marriedApicata, who may
well have had some connection with Apicius (9).
(1) Cf.V. G. Sumner, TheFamily ofL. Aelius

Connections Seianus inPhoenix
, 19,1965,
p. 137. Butforvariants cf.R. Sealey, ThePoliticalAttachments ofL. Aelius in
Seianus
Phoenix,15,1961,p. 103; F. Adams, TheConsularBrothers
ofSejanus inA.J.P., 76,1955,
p. 71ff.; R. Syme, Tacitus
, Oxford,1958,p. 384,(henceforthcitedas Syme, T.).
(2) E.g. Sealey etc.(citedabove).
(3) ForthecaseofMurena seenowБ.J.Weinrib, TheProsecutionofRoman Magistrates
in Phoenix, 22, 1968,p. 49 ff.
(4) A. Stein,DiePrdfekten vonÄgypten, Berne,1950,p. 16ff.; Syme, R.R.,p. 384;
R.E., s.v.Aelius,no. 133; P.I.R.*,I, A, 255.
(5) Pompon, Dig.,1, 2, 2, 51.
(6) Sumner, op.cit.,p. 137if.
(7) Tag.,Ann., VI, 15, 1.
(8) Sumner, op.dt.,p. 143; Syme,T., p. 607.
(9) Tac., Ann., IV, 1,2 ; Dio, 57, 19,5 ; Sumner,op.cit.,p. 145.

L. AELIUS SEIANUS AND HTS POLITICALINFLUENCE 63
We next hear of Sejanus when he accompanies Drusus (another

prince and second husband of Livilla, who had formerlybeen
married to Gaius) to Pannonia in September, 14. He was then in
his early thirtiesand joint Praetorian Prefectwith his natural father.
His career in the interim period remains a mystery,but in view of
Tiberius' proven reliance upon him (x) and the importance of the
Pannonian mission it appears possible that he had served in the
north with Tiberius and he may well have been acquainted with
Pannonia. Sejanus commanded two Praetorian cohortsand a great
part ofthe Praetorian cavalry and was to act as a rectorto the younger
Drusus and ceterispericulorum praemiorumque ostentator
(2). It should
be noted here, however, that Sejanus would not be the senior ad-
viser, in spite of the prominence accorded him by Tacitus, who
adduces his name this early in the Annals to prepare the reader for
his role in the second half of the hexad. One furtherpoint : Sejanus'
Uncle, Q. Junius Blaesus, was in command of the three legions in
Pannonia (3), which may not have been coincidental.
The mutiny was swiftlyquelled and Drusus, presumably with
Sejanus, left for Rome (4), arriving probably in October.
Sometime during the followingyear Sejanus became sole Prae-
torian Prefect,upon the promotion of his father to the Prefecture
of Egypt, the senior equestrian post at this time. The latter's tenure
was brief; he was succeeded by C. Galerius in 16 or 17 (5). In 15,
however, the Praetorians were not the powerfulpolitical instrument
of subsequent years (e), nor was Sejanus. NeverthelessTacitus once
again adduces his name (7) for the reason stated above : Sejanus
inflamed and aggravated Tiberius' odium of Agrippina who had
meddled in military affairs.
For the next fewyears Sejanus clearly worked efficiently as Prae-
torian Prefectand sought, not without success, to ingratiate himself
with Tiberius (8). His success in wielding power so long was not due
(1) Cf.Tac., Ann.,1, 24,2.

(2) Ibid.Cf.H. Furneaux,TheAnnals of Tacitus, Oxford,1896,I, p. 214,note6.
(3) Tac., Ann.,1, 16,2.
(4) Tac., Ann.,I, 30, 5.
(5) Cf.Seneca,AdHelviam , 19; P.I.R.' 4, G, 25; Syme,T., p. 285.
(6) Tac., Ann.,IV, 2, 1.
(7) Tac., Ann.,I, 69, 5.
(8) In 20hetricked Piso,soTacitussays,intowithholding occultamandata
{Ann.,
Ill,
16,1).

64 H. W. BIRD
to chance or merely to the empereor's favour, but to a very real

political sagacity. Tiberius relied upon him because he was reliable
and loyal (*), and his influencewith the emperorwould be enhanced
by his remaining outside of the power groups gathered around the
princes. It is also improbable that he belonged to the group centred
upon M. Furius Camillus {cos. 8) and L. Arruntius(cos. 6) (2) since
the latter was long detested by Sejanus (3) and L. ArruntiusFurius
Camillus Scribonianus was consul in 32, the year after Sejanus'
downfall. Sealey's conclusions regarding Sejanus' connection with
the party of Maecenas (4) appear unfounded, even more so if one
accepts Sumner's view (5) that Sejanus was not connected with the
Cornelii Lentuli.
It is likely that Sejanus' concentrationof the Praetorians on the
Viminal heralded a new phase in his political influence (e). This
action he took with the full approval of Tiberius, who saw it as a
possible insurance for himself. Germanicus was by this time dead,
but the popular demonstrationsin his favour and against Piso had
perhaps not been without effect.At any rate five eminentsenators,
including L. Arruntius,M. Vinicius and Asinius Gallus, refusedto
defend Piso. The year of the reorganization of the Praetorians ac-
cording to Dio (7), was 20, and the same year Sejanus' daughter,
Junilla, was promised to Drusus, son of Claudius and great-nephew
of the emperor. Even then Sejanus was suspected of designs above
his station (8). Furthermore,Sejanus received the insigniaof praetor
in 20 and became the emperor's ovpßovXov uai vnr¡Qérrjv tiqòç
návra (ö).
(1) Cf.Syme,T., p. 405.

(2) Vid.Weinrib,TheFamily ofM. LiviusDrusus
Connections Liboin H.S.C.P.
, 72,
1968,esp.p. 272ff.
(3) Tac., Ann.,VI, 48, 1. Arruntius mayhavebeenusedas a counterweight toSe-
janusbyTiberius, though ; cf.W. Allen, ThePolitical
thisis doubtful ofthe
Atmosphere
Reign of Tiberiusin T.A.P.A.,72, 1941,p. 23.
(4) Sealey,op,cit. (in n. 1, p. 62), p. 114.
(5) Op.cit.,in n. 1,p. 62.
(6) Tac., Ann., IV, 2, 1; Dio, 57, 19,6 ; Syme,T., p. 286.
(7) Dio, 57, 19,6.
(8) Tac., Ann., III, 29,4.
(9) Dio,57,19,7. Hereoneshould perhaps pointoutthat20istheyearthatheralds,
forDio at anyrate,thegreatchangeinTiberius, whichtakesplaceafterGermaniem'
death.Tacitus, forartisticreasons,reservedthechange for23,withthedeathofDrusus,
a moreconvenient milestone inthereign.In thefirstthreebooksof the'Annals'Ger-

L. AELIUS SEIANUSAND HIS POLITICALINFLUENCE 65
Two years later, so Tacitus informs us (1), Sej anus helped to

contain a firein the Theatre of Pompey and preventedit fromsprea-
ding. For this service Tiberius praised him, and the senate, pro-
bably at his instigation,voted Sejanus a statue to be placed in the
theatre. The Praetorian Prefectwas clearly a very important po-
litical figureand his power was growing. One may pause to consider
why, amid a period of tranquillity(2) and with a son and heir in
his mid-thirties(3), Tiberius should have allowed so much power
and influenceto devolve upon Sejanus (4). The answer appears to
be that Tiberius needed a man of Sejanus' status and capabilities.
Tacitus' description of Sejanus (5) is strikinglysimilar,in certain
important aspects, to that of Vellerns. The Prefectwas a man of
strength,energy and efficiency,and was loyal to Tiberius. It is
shown by Tacitus that Tiberius was outspoken to him alone, that
the emperor disapproved of servility(e). Tiberius, apparently,had
nothing to fear from an equestrian, who could hardly usurp the
throneor gather a factional clan-followingwithoutimperial support.
It seems probable that Sejanus, with the emperor's connivance,
sought the adherence of an existingfaction only after the death of
Drusus in 23, for the particular reason that otherwise the latter's
group would defect,at least in part, to the party of Agrippina, and
thus cause furtherembarrassmentto Tiberius. The emperor could
effectivelyneutralize this party by supportingSejanus and allowing
his political influence to grow by means of patronage, and finally
manicus is thesecondary majorfigure ; Sejanusplaysthesamerolein thesecondhalf

ofthehexad.It is noticeable thatmuchofBookIII is favourable toTiberius,evenin
thefinal chapter, but thenames ofCassiusand Brutus inthelastsentenceare notgratui-
tousinsertions. Suetonius reserveshisbreakintothevitia sectionfortheretreat
toCapri
( Tib,,41ff.).He does,ofcourse, gobackintimetoportray vitia
incidental buttheim-
plication isthat Tiberiuslefthisvirtuesbehind on themainland. role
Sejanus* throughout
is minimized, e.g. Tib.,37. He doesnotappearuntillateoninthevitiaand,although
theCaveincident isbrieflydescribed( Tib.,39),Sejanus doesnotfigureinit. Thisanec-
doteappears before theaccount ofTiberius' vicesanditseems thatSuetoniusdeliberately
omitted Sejanuswhowas,according to Tacitus,so deeplyinvolved in Tiberis'vitia.
(1) Arm., Ill, 72,3. Forother accounts ofthegrant ofstatuestoSejanusvid.Ann.,
2 3 4
IV, 7, ; Dio, 57,21, ; 58,4, ; Suet.,Tib., 48.
(2) Tac., Ann.,IV, 1, 1.
(3) Vid.Sumner, GermanicusandDrusus Caesar in Latomus,26, 1967,p. 427ff.
(4) Cf. Dio, 57,21, 4.
(5) Ann., loe. cit.,cf.Yell., II, 127,3-4.
(6) Ann.,III, 65, 3.
5

66 н. W. BIRD
by permittingor even encouraging him to attack certain members

of that group.
Tacitus is correct in assuming that the year 23 was decisive, al-
though he may be mistaken in considering that Sej anus' imperial
designs began to be formulated at this juncture (1). Moreover it
appears unlikely that, with Drusus still alive, Tiberius or his com-
manders would have statues of Sej anus "in theatres,forumsand le-
gionary headquarters" (2). The proliferationof statues probably
took place after 23.
"The power Sejanus possessedlured him on. In his way, however,
stood Drusus and the children of Germanicus" (8). This is the
view ofTacitus followedby some modernauthorities. More probably
Sejanus saw his present position endangered (4) and therefore,in-
censed by Drusus, who apparently struckhim (5), and fullyaware
of the bitter resentmentof the emperor's son, who did nothing to
conceal it, was moved to protect his own position. He chose his
agent carefully if we accept the unanimous testimonyof Tacitus,
Dio and Suetonius (e), forhe conspiredwith Livilla to poison Drusus.
The plot was so carefullyarranged (it included, as far as we know,
only two others, Eudemus and Lygdus, a doctor and a eunuch)
that it was not disclosed until afterSejanus' fall, by Apicata, Seja-
nus' divorced wife. Supposedly Sejanus pretended to be enamoured
of Livilla, and she, a mature woman of outstandingbeauty, polluted
herselfand her familywith this municipal adulterer,and exchanged
her honourable and present hopes for dishonourable and uncer-
tain ones (7). Motives are patent, and credibilityis lent to the story
by the fact that Sejanus immediatelydivorced Apicata (8), mother
(1) Arm., IV, I, ff.

(2) Arm., IV, 2, 2.
(3) R.E.y1,s.v.Aelius, no. 133,following IV, 3, 1.
Tac., Ann.,
(4) F. B. Marsh,TheReign of Tiberius
, London, 1931,p. 163; cf.Syme,T.,p. 752-
754.
(5) Tag.,Arm., IV,3,2 ; Dio,57,22,1. Butcf.Dio,57,14,9,whoplacestheincident
in theyear15though itdoesnotnecessarily refer
to thatyear.Dio is confused.The
violentquarrelprobably tookplacenearer 23,although Rooers,Studies intheReignof
Tiberius
, Baltimore, 1943,p. 142,favours 20.
(6) Tag.,Ann., IV, 3, 3 ; Dio, 57,22, 1; Suet., Tib.,62.
(7) Tag.,Arm., IV, 3, 4 ; Dio, 57,22, 2.
(8) Tac., Ann., IV, 3, 5.

L. AELIUS SEIANUSANDHIS POLITICALINFLUENCE 67
of his three children, and later, in 25, asked for Livilla's hand in
marriage (1). Moreover Livilla is portrayed by Pliny (2) as com-
mitting adultery with Eudemus, while Sejanus is described as a
veritable Don Juan several years later (8), and Drusus does not
appear to have been a very lovable character. We have only one
mention of any kind of affectionfeltby Drusus for Livilla (4), and
this occurs in a suspect context. Indeed Rogers feels that the mar-
riage of Drusus and Livilla was probably none too happy (B). At
any event, adultery would have been as dangerous to both Sejanus
and Livilla as murder and treason, and, if it took place, it would
be but part of a larger plan to encompass the destructionof Drusus.
Drusus died on September 14th, 23, leaving Tiberius without a
mature heir and approaching his 64th birthday. Sejanus' position
was secure and his influencestrengthened. That it had been by no
means neglibible prior to this is demonstrated by the case of his
uncle, Q. Junius Blaesus. In 21 Blaesus was made proconsul of
Africa extrasortemto deal with Tacfarinas. He was preferredto M.
Lepidus, owing to Sejanus' influence(®). The followingyear Blaesus
gained the ornamenta "to honour Sejanus" (7), and Junius
triumphalia,
Otho was made praetor,also through Sejanus (8). Furthermore,in
the period between the death of Germanicus and that of Drusus,
Sejanus became av/ißovXovxai vnr¡Qéxr¡v jiqòç л ávxa, probably in
20 (#),"adiutorem singulárem in omnia" (l0), and Tiberius' sorium
laborum(u), which would hardly lessen Drusus' antipathy. It is
perhaps not without reason that Dio describes Sejanus as èní те xfj
la%vi xal ènl тф âiidoftari vneQ/uaÇrjoaçxá re äXXa vnéfjoyxoç(12).
(1) Tao., Ann.,IV, 39,3.

(2) N.H.,29, 20.
(3) Dio, 58,3, 8.
(4) Tao., Ann.,III, 34,6.
(5) Op.cit.,p. 78.
(6) Tac., Arm.,III, 35, 2.
(7) Tao., Am.,III, 72,4.
(8) Tac., Ann.,III, 66, 3.
(9) Dio, 57, 19, 7.
(10) Vell., II, 127,3.
(11) Tac., Asm.,IV, 2, 2.
(12) Dio, 57, 22, 1.

68 H. W. BIRD
The Results of Drusus' Death
The next consideration is whether Sejanus now conceived the

plan of succeeding Tiberius (if he ever did) (1). Dio's account of
23 appears to give a reasonable solution (*) ; with Drusus out of
the way Sejanus would be able to manage the emperor more easily
and could increase his already formidable powers. There seems
little doubt that he was an extremelyable opportunistand he must
have realized that any appearance of imperial aspirations was
likelyto cause his immediate fall. Whatever longtermplans he had
would be slow in maturingand helped by the turbulentattitude and
excessive ambition of Agrippina. Furthermoreit is inconceivable
that Tiberius desired the extermination of the male members of
Germanicus' house, for he thoroughly appreciated the difficulties
involved in dynastic succession, and probably regarded Agrippina's
faction not so much a threat as an encumbrance. It is, therefore,
hardly likely that he commissioned Sejanus to destroyAgrippina's
sons in favourof Drusus' son, Gemellus (s). MoreoverJulia Augusta,
too, would be entirelyopposed to any weakening of the family by
dissension and relegation (4), and she exercised considerable power
until her death in 29.
The imperial house was indeed fullof heirs in 23 ; Nero (1 7 years
old), Drusus (16), Caligula (11), and Tiberius' grandson, Gemellus
(4). But Tiberius was faced with a difficultproblem. None of the
young princes was capable of undertakingthe task of ruling the
empire without assistance, and a mature, experienced and loyal
regentwas necessaryin the event of Tiberius' death within the next
fiveor ten years. Sejanus was Tiberius' logical choice, since his back-
groundwould preclude any imperial pretensions,at least to Tiberius,
but the emperorhad to be assuredofhis acceptance by the nobility(6).
He also, apparently, attempted some reorganization of provincial
IV, 3, 1.
(1) Tac., Arm.,
(2) Dio, 57,22, 2 ; butcf.57, 22, 4 b (Zonaras).
(3) Wehavediffering ofTiberius'
reports forGemellus.
feelings Suetonius
( Tib,,62)
telsusthattheempereor despisedGemellusforbeingbornofadultery.
Tacitus,
however,
intimates
thattheemperor felt fortheboyandshowed
affection a complete
understanding
ofwhatsubsequently occurred(Arm.,VI, 46, 3 ff.).
(4) Syme, Ä.Ä.,p. 677.
(5) Marsh,op. cit.,p. 164.

administration, which would ensure the smooth working of the

imperial machinery if the chief executive were to die suddenly.
Henceforthtrustedmen were given extended commands in imperial
provinces, a not unprecedented move (*), and Tiberius again at-
tempted to shift some of the responsibilityfor administeringthe
empire onto the senate. At the same time by commending to
them the two princes, Nero and Drusus, he made their dynastic
claims perfectlyclear (2). This clarificationof the situation in 23
perhaps rescues Sej anus from some of the historical phantasies
regarding his career (3).
Sejanus, commited to Tiberius and therebyopposed to Agrippina
and her favouriteson, Nero, could expect littlesympathyfromthem,
should Nero succeed. He thereforecourted Drusus by playing him
offagainst his brother,spe obiectaprincipisloci, si prioremaetate (i.e.
Nerörtern)et iam labefactum demovisset(4). Drusus would presumably
have a following,albeit a smaller and less significantone than Agrip-
pina and Nero, but at thispoint he was Sejanus' sole hope ifTiberius
suddenly died. Moreover Drusus shared his mother'satroxingenium ,
resented his mother's favourite, and desired power as much as his
motherand elder brother. Mutual interestscould draw Sejanus and
Drusus togetherfor the time being. A useful although perhaps un-
wittingspy was readily found in Julia, the daughter of Livilla and
wife of Nero, who communicated to her mother and thereby to
Sejanus much of what Nero did and said. But Drusus, too, was in
jeopardy (5) and it is possible that he was forced to die by Tiberius,
even afterSejanus' fall,because ofhis complicityin the circumvention
of his brother.
At any event the neutralization of Agrippina and her party re-
mained the prime concern of both emperor and prefect after 23,
especially as the party would gain in strengthand demands after
the death of the emperor's son, and Agrippina, empress manquée
and would-be empress mother, exacerbated Tiberius' resentment
on more than one occasion. Germanicus had seen the dangers in-
(1) Furneaux,op.cit.,p. 113ff.

(2) Cf.G. Kampff, ThreeSenate intheEarly
Meetings in Phoenix
Principáte , 17,1963,
p. 47 ff.,and especially
p. 52.
(3) Syme,T., p. 402.
(4) Tac., Ann.,IV, 60, 2.
(5) Ibid.

70 H. W. BIRD
herent in herhasty temper and excessive ambition in 19, and on his

death bed he had advised her to be cautious But she continued
in her rancour, becoming not only an annoyance to the emperor,
but possibly a potential threat; hence Tiberius' reluctance to
allow her to remarry(*). "There were those", said Sejanus, "who
called themselvesthe partyof Agrippina, and unless theywere chec-
ked, there would be more ; the only remedy for the increasing dis-
cord was the overthrow of one or two of the most entreprising
leaders" (s). Two phrases are very significantin this passage :
diductamcivitatem ut civili bello and gliscentisdiscordia«remedium.Even
ifTiberius overestimated,as is possible, the strengthof Agrippina's
cabal, its very existence certainlycreated a growing discord. Two
methods were used against it, promotion of those who did not sup-
port Agrippina and prosecution of some of those who did.
An examination of the consular lists immediately after 23 shows
a plethora of Cornelii Lentuli, and the senior member of this group,
Cossus, was probably an old friendofTiberius (4) who even thwarted
Sejanus some years later to save L. Arruntius(5). It is impossible
to state that no adherents of Agrippina were promoted, but presu-
mably few,if any, were. A stronghint to change sides. P. Vitellius,
formerlya staunch supporterof Germanicus (•), appears later as a
diehard Sejanian (7). Titius Sabinus was "praised" by Latiaris in
28 for not having, like the rest, deserted the house of Germanicus
afteritsfall (8). It would be in order to conjecturea gradual falling
away of support afteran initial period of growingstrengthin late 23
and early 24.
The other means of isolating Agrippina was not apparently em-
ployed to any great extent. Few prosecutionsinvolving the friend-
ship of Germanicus or Agrippina are recorded. This should not be
surprising,since such prosecutions would be odious to the senate
and were, in effect,not necessary. Three are cited by Tacitus,
(1) Tao., Ann.,II, 72, 1.

(2) Tac., Arm.,IV, 53,2.
(3) Tao., Aim.,IV, 17,3.
(4) Syme, T.yp. 384.
(5) Dio, 58,8, 3.
(6) Tac., Arn,
., III, 13,2.
(7) Tac., Ann.,V, 8, 1.
(8) Tac., Ann.,IV, 68, 3.

the cases of C. Silius and his wife,Sosia, in 24 (x), Claudia Pulchra

in 26 (2), and of Titius Sabinus in 28 (3). In addition, a former
quaestor of Germanicus, P. Suillius, was convicted in 24 of having
received bribesfora judicial decision (4). Shotterthinksthat Sejanus
played upon Tiberius' fears, and was at this stage genuinely am-
bitious of gaining the throne (5). He proceeds to representthe party
of Agrippina as a strong,potentially dangerous force needing sup-
pression. Sejanus, however, would see that whatever threatened
Tiberius automatically threatened him. Yet C. Silius and his wife
and P. Suillius were rightlycondemned, as Tacitus admits, and the
prosecution of Claudia Pulchra in 26 "was the firststep in Agrip-
pina's destruction". Possibly the two cases of 24 served a double
purpose : state necessity,the termused by Tacitus (e), called forboth
justice and a demonstrationthat adherence to Agrippina implied
no protection. Titius Sabinus, too, may have been guiltyof seditious
intrigue, which could well be in accord with Tacitus' statement
that the attack upon him was aimed at Nero and Agrippina (7).
A furthermove in these effortsto neutralize Agrippina came in 25
when Tiberius and Sejanus gave the senate an exhibition of Prae-
torian power (8). By this time the party of Agrippina and Nero
would have declined seriously, though it was not yet defunct,
since one must wait until the next year for the attack on Claudia
Pulchra. But the request of Sejanus for the hand of Livilla is a
sure indication that Sejanus felt his position to be strong enough
to warrant his action (9). Tiberius' reply is carefullyworded (10).
He could neither affordthe luxury of a marriage alliance with Se-
janus, because of the discord this would produce, nor could he
(1) Tac., Ann.,IV, 18, 1-20,1.

(2) Tac., Ann.,IV, 52, 1 ff.
(3) Tac., Ann.,IV, 68-70;abo Dio, 58, 1, 1.
(4) Tac., Ann., IV, 31, 3.
(5) D. G.A. Shotter,TheTrialofС. SiliusinLatomus, 26,(3), 1967,p. 712ff.His
viewofthepotential danger ofAgrippina's
partyagreeswiththatofR. S. Rogers,
TheConspiracy ofAgrippinain T.A.P.A.,
62,1931,p. 141-168.
Allen,op.cit.(n.1,p.62),
p. 7, is ofa differentopinion.
(6) Loc.cit.,in n. 4 above.
(7) Tac., Ann., IV, 70,4.
(8) Dio, 57, 24, 5.
(9) Tac., Ann., IV, 39, 3.
(10) Tас., Ann., IV, 40, 1 ff.

72 H. W. BIRD
affordto dismiss the request lightly. Again an indication of his re-

liance upon his minister. Sejanus sought to allay any apprehensions
Tiberius might feel (*), and, so Tacitus informsus, began his cam-
paign to persuade the emperor to quit Rome forsome quiet retreat.
In the meantime he did not relax his effortsto stir up Tiberius'
known enmity towards Agrippina. The elaborately-staged party
piece (2) was merely the culmination of his designs, and Tiberius
was able to demonstrateto his motherthat Agrippina suspected him
of attemptingto poison her. Augusta, though she was no friendof
Agrippina's, was hardly willing to see the total subversion of the
house of Germanicus, and presumably her protectionaided Agrip-
pina until 29 ; thus this subterfugemay have been intended to win
her sympathyfor whatever Tiberius had in mind. In spite of this,
however,no action was taken against Agrippina herself,or her sons,
until immediately after Augusta's death (8).
Through the attack on Claudia Pulchra in 26 and Tiberius'
refusal to grant Agrippina a second marriage the party of Agrip-
pina would be struck a double blow. Subsequently fortuneaided
still furtherthe designs of Sejanus. There is no readier way of
proving one's loyalty and devotion than by saving another's life at
the riskof one's own. This Sejanus did in the "Cave" near Fundi (4).
Tiberius, at odds with his mother (5) as well as with Agrippina, now
felt sure he could safely leave Rome to Sejanus, and the following
year he quit Rome, never to return (e).
With regard to Tiberius' self-imposedexile there are a few consi-
derations to note. The emperor was approaching his 68th birthday
when he moved to Capri. Moreover, the choice was his ; he did not
returneven after Sejanus' fall. Again, when he leftfor Campania
in 26 it was predicted that he would not return, a prediction he
himself believed ('). Many fatally assumed his early death. He
did not return, but he did live eleven more years. Finally, it is
(1) Tac., Amu,IV, 41, 1.

(2) Tac., Am.,IV, 54, 1; Suet., Tib.,53.
V, 3, 1.
(3) Tac., Ann.,
(4) Tao.,Ann.,IV, 59, 1-2; Suet., Tib.,39. Vid.note9, p. 64.
I, 14,2 : V, 2, 1: Suet.,Tib..50: 51. Cf.Dio. 58. 2. 1.
(5) Tac.,Ann.,
IV, 67, 1; Dio, 58, 1, 1 (Xiph.); Suet.,Tib.,61 ff.Cf.Syme,T.,
(6) Tac., Ann.,
p. 402.
IV, 58, 2. Cf.Ann.,
(7) Tac., Ann., VI, 1, 1.

conceivable that he hoped, by his absence fromRome, to encourage

the senate to undertake more administrativeresponsibility. He had
alluded to this in 14 and 23 (x), and in the latter year some sort of
administrativechange appears to have taken place, although Taci-
tus' phraseology obscures it. Possibly the party strugglewhich en-
sued afterDrusus' death had rendered Tiberius' effortsfutileforthe
next two years or so, but by 26 the situation had improved through
the neutralization of Agrippina's party (2).
The Power Structure
With Tiberius' departure Sej anus undoubtedly became the most

important individual at Rome (3) and the position of Agrippina
and Nero declined still further(4). Nevertheless Sejanus was still
dependent upon the support, if not adherence, of a number of
powerfulfamilies. Therefore, before making any attempt to trace
the partisans and opponents of Sejanus', one should firstconsider
the prominent families of Tiberius' reign and their various inter-
connections (5).
The CorneliiLentuli
This familygained five consulships in four years : Ser. Cornelius
Lentulus and P. Cornelius Lentulus Scipio in 24 ; Cossus Cornelius
Lentulus in 25 ; Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Gaetulicus in 26 ; P. Cor-
nelius Lentulus in 27. In addition Gaetulicus was legate of Lower
Germanyfrom29-39. His father-in-law,L. Apronius,was proconsul
of Africa from 18 to 21 and was legate of Upper Germany from28
and appears to have been in officein 34. Apronius' son, L. Apro-
nius Caesianus, was praetor in 32, in spite of "intimacy" with Se-
il) Tac., Ann,,I, 12, 1 ff.; IV, 9, 1.

(2) Gf.Kampff, op.cit.,p. 53-54.
(3) Gf.Dio, 58, 2, 7.
(4) Tac., Ann.,IV, 67, 4.
(5) The following information has beencollected from Degrassi,F.C.I.R., Rome,
1952,p. 4-11.P.I.R.2,R.E.; Furneaux, op.cit.,p. 113-118; Syme, T.,p. 379-384.Cf.
alsoR. Syme,SomePisonesinTacitus inJ.R.S.,46,1956, p. 17-21; R. Syme,MarcusLepidus
CapaxImperiiinJ.R.S.,45, 1955,p. 22-33; R. Syme,TheHistorian Nonianus
Servilius in
Hermes,92,1964,p. 408-424 ; R. S. Rogers,Lucius in C.P.,26,1931,p. 31-45;
Arruntius
J. Crook,Consilium Cambridge,
Principis, 1955,p. 148-190.

74 H. W. BIRD
janus. Finally, Gaetulicus' sisterwas the wife of Calvisius Sabinus,

who was consul in 26 with Gaetulicus. His brother, the consul of
25, was possibly his predecessor as legate in Upper Germany.
The CalpurniiPisones
In 27 L. (formerlyCn.) Calpurnius Piso and M. Licinius Crassus
Frugi were consuls. The latter was connected with the Calpurnii
Pisones and married to a Scribonia, the daughter of L. Scribonius
Libo (cos. 16). It was presumably one of their sons who became
Galba's Caesar in 69. A second L. Calpurnius Piso was killed in
Spain in 25. He was possibly the praetorian deputy of L. Arruntius
and son of L. Calpurnius Piso Pontifex (cos. 15 B.C.). A daughter
of the latter, Calpúrnia, had married L. Nonius Asprenas (cos. 6),
the proconsul of Africa in 14. Their son was consul in 29. L. Cal-
purnius Piso Pontifexhimselfhad an illustriouscareer as a provincial
governor of more than one province and was finallymade Urban
Prefectfortwentyyears until his death in 32, when he was honoured
with a public funeral. This grand old man was the brother-in-law
of C. Julius Caesar. It is significantthat neitherof these two families
had been implicated in Augustus' matrimonial arrangements
(R.R., p. 436).
The Junii Silani
In 15 M. Junius Silanus was consul, followed in 19 by M. Junius
Silanus Torquatus, and in 28 by C. Appius Junius Silanus and L.
Junius Silanus. From 20 to 21 C. Junius Silanus (cos. 10) was pro-
consul of Asia, but he was justly impeached and committedsuicide.
Nevertheless, M. Junius Silanus Torquatus governed Africa from
32 until 37, and D. Junius Silanus was allowed to returnfromexile
in 20. Furthermore,the latterapparentlyadopted a son of Gaetulicus.
The Aemilii Lepidi
This family registersno consulship in Tiberius' reign, but M.'
Aemilius Lepidus (cos. 11) was proconsul of Asia in 21/22 and M.
Aemilius Lepidus (cos. 6) was proconsul of the same province in 26
and 27. Furthermorethe latter's daughter married Drusus Caesar,
son of Germanicus, and his son, M. Aemilius Lepidus, marriedJulia
Drusilla, great granddaughter of Augustus. In addition the Aemilii
Lepidi were connected with the imperial familythroughthe marriage
ofJulia, Augustus' granddaughter,and L. Aemilius Paullus (cos. 1).

They were also connected with the Junii Silani by the marriage of
Paullus' daughter, Aemilia Lepida, to M. Junius Silanus (cos, 19).
One furtherconnection : Mamercus Aemilius Scaurus had married
an Aemilia Lepida.
Several individuals who belonged to the power complex should
also be noted. L. Arruntius(cos. 6) was absentee governorof Spain
for at least ten years, probably from23 onwards. L. Aelius Lamia
hald a similar command in absentiaover Syria, possiblyfrom19 until
32. He had been proconsul ofAfricafrom15 until 17, and succeeded
L. Piso as urban prefectin 32, dying in 33 (x). Vibius Marsus (cos.
17) had been a friendof Germanicus (2), but almost certainly de-
fectedfromthe party of Agrippina since he was proconsul of Africa
(27-29). Together withArruntiushe was attacked by Macro in 37 (8).
Arruntius'fatherwas a novushomo(¿ш. 22 B.C.) and a trustedmarshall
of Augustus, as was M. Vinícius (cos. 19 B.C.) (4). Vinicius' grand-
son became consul in 30 and married Julia Livilla in 33, and his
associate in officewas L. Cassius Longinus, who married Drusilla,
also in 33. Last come Q. Junius Blaesus (cos. 10) and his son (cos.
26), close relatives of Sej anus (6). The elder Blaesus was proconsul
of Africa (21-22). Of this remarkable list only the Blaesi sufferedfor
theirSejanian connections,the fatherin 31, the son (and his brother)
in 36 (e).
The Positionof Sejanus: His Allies.

In 26 Sejanus' only officialposition was that of prefect of the
, an un-
praetorians. He did, it is true, possess the insigniapraetoria
usual distinctionfor a knight, and was unofficiallythe emperor's
adviser and assistantin all matters (7). The support,therefore,which,
he had collected with Tiberius' connivance, naturally increased,
but the majorityof the nobileswould presumablyowe theirallegiance
to the regime which Sejanus representedrather than to the minister
(1) Tac., Ann.,VI, 27, 2.

(2) Tac., Ann.,II, 74, 1; IV, 56, 3.
(3) Tac., Ann.,VI, 47, 2 ff.
(4) Syme, R.R.,p. 372.
(5) Vid.,p. 61.
(6) Tac., Ann.,V, 7, 2 ; VI, 40, 2.
(7) Dio, 57, 19,7.

76 H. W. BIRO
himselfI1). Many had prospered and expected to continue to do

so, especially the Cornelii Lentuli, the Calpurnii Pisones and the
Junii Silani. The Calpurnii Pisones would certainlynot mourn the
destructionof Agrippina's party. Sejanus could thus count on the
support of influentialnobilesas long as he remained the emperor's
loyal agent, aided them in theircareers,and did not appear to aspire
to supreme power. He could not affordto offendtheir dignitas,and
he seems to have avoided doing so at least until 30. His equestrian
status would thereforebe advantageous, because although he pos-
sessedpotestashe ranked below the nobilesin dignitas(a). An enume-
ration of his proven supportersshould help to illustrate this.
Q. Junius Blaesus, uncle of Sejanus, owed his African proconsul-
ship and insigniatriumphalia to his nephew (3). He perished in 31
forhis Sejanian connections,and his sons were driven to suicide five
years later (4). P. Vitellius, praefectus
aerano, was arraigned in late
31 and committed suicide. He had apparently offeredthe keys of
the treasury to aid a revolution (6). Doubtless his violent attack
on Cn. Piso in 20 and the subsequent destructionof the party of
Germanicus/Agrippinahad lefthim no recourse but to join Sejanus.
The latterhad probably been instrumentalin Vitellius' appointment.
Satrius Secundus was certainly a Sejanian, although he may have
proved disloyal at the end, since he is cited as an indexof the late
(i.e. Sejanian) conspiracy (e). Several other "friends" of Sejanus
were later arraigned. First in 32 Sextius Paconianus, an ex-praetor,
who, in turn, implicated Latinius Latiaris ('). Then Minucius, and
Servaeus, who gave evidence against Julius Africanus, a Roman
Knight, and Seius Quadratus (8).
Two of Sejanus' agents on Capri, so it would appear, were Ves-
cularius Flaccus and Julius Marinus, both among the oldest of
(1) Syme,T., p. 405.Augustus hadeffectively

reconciled
all parties,
so thatno real
oppostiontoTiberius existedintheearly partofhisreign.Theregime wassecure,even
ifAgrippina'sgroupposedproblems forTiberius
personally.Gf.Syme, R.R.,p. 257;
F. Adcogk,C.A.H.y X, p. 602-604.
(2) Cf.Tac., Ann., IV, 3, 4 ff.; IV, 40,4. Gf.abo VI, 27, 1.
(3) Tac., Ann., III, 35, 1 ff.; 72,4 ; 74,4.
(4) Loc.cit.,in п. 6, p. 75.
(5) Tac., Ann., V, 8, 1.
(6) Tac., Ann., VI, 47, 2 ; cf.VI, 8, 5.
(7) Tac., Ann., VI, 3, 4-4,1.
(8) Tac., Arm., VI, 7, 2 ff.

L. AELIUS SEIANUSAND HÏS POLITICALINFLUENCE 77
Tiberius' friends. They perished in 32 (*). Tacitus also mentions

three knightsand an apparent senator, Rubrius Fabatus, as further
allies of Sejanus. Only one dies, however, by suicide (2). Finally
one might add BruttediusNiger and T. Ollius, who were probably
slain in the disorders following Sejanus' death (8).
Tiberian-Sejanians
One person of note generally, and perhaps erroneously,accepted
as a Sejanian was Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus Gaetulicus (4), whose
three major appointments, praetorship (23), consulship (26) and
governorshipin Upper Germany (29) all occurred during Sejanus'
period of power. Gaetulicus' father,Cossus, however,was certainly
no Sejanian (6), and Gaetulicus himself had no need of Sejanus
after 29. The family loyalty was probably to Tiberius, especially
in view of the fact that fourof theirfiveconsulshipsbetween 24 and
27 were gained before the Cave episode. Presumably one should
associate L. Apronius, Gaetulicus' father-in-law,with this family's
political sympathies. Gaetulicus was indeed a revolutionaryin 39 (e) .
He may or may not have been in 31. Although he was impeached,
he survived and did not lose his command ; neither did his father-
in-law, Apronius, whose son was praetor in 32 in spite of alleged
friendshipwith Sejanus (7). It may not have been throughfear that
Tiberius did not attack them in 31 or 32 (they held the Rhine com-
mands) but through agreement. The projected marriage alliance
between Sejanus' son and Gaetulicus' daughter might have been
viewed as an insurance on both sides. It proved no obstacle to
Gaetulicus. Moreover Cossus, Gaetulicus' father,was a Tiberian,
in all probability, and may well have influenced his son. Tiberius
trustedthe Cornelii Lentuli (8). On the other hand, no Cornelius
Lentulus was consul after 31 as long as Tiberius lived. This, how-
ever, may be explained by the fact so many reached the consulship
(1) Tac., Arm., VI, 10,2.

(2) Tag.,Arm., VI, 14, 1-2.
(3) Tac., Ann., Ill, 66, 1 ff.; XIII, 45, 1; Marsh,op.cit., p. 198.
(4) ForGaetulicus vid.,P.I.R.*,2, G 1390.
(5) Dio, 58, 8, 3 ; Syme,T., p. 384.
(6) Dio, 59,22, 5 ; Suet,.Claud., 9 ; C.I.L., VI, 2029.
(7) Dio, 58, 19, 1.
(8) Syme,T., p. 384; R.R., p. 436-437.

78 H. W. BIRD
withinsuch a shortperiodin the twentiesand consequentlyno eligible

Cornelius Lentulus remained (1). SimilarlytheJunii Silani received
two consulships in 28, thereforethey probably cooperated with
Sejanus (*). But theymay also have had Tiberian connectionssince
M. Silanus was consul in 15 and M. Junius Silanus Torquatus be-
came consul in 19, before the death of Germanicus (8), and was
proconsul of Africa from 32 to 37, afterSejanus' fall (4), and D.
Junius Silanus was recalled in 20. The consul of 10, C. Junius Si-
lanus, was proconsul of Asia in 20-21, and his fall and banishment
thereafterwere due to criminal actions (8). Sealey (•) adduces this
case and the punishmentof D. Silanus in 8 foradulterywithJulia (7)
as evidence that the Junii Silani were anti-Tiberius, but Livia
encompassed the latter's fall, and a host of attackers including
Mamercus Scaurus and one of Sejanus' men,Junius Otho, supported
the provincials' case against the former(8). Moreover when ac-
cusers brought charges against C. Appius Junius Silanus (cos. 28)
(presumablyforcomplicityin Sejanus' plot) Celsus, a tribuneof the
Urban cohorts and one of the prosecutors,withdrew the charges
against him (9). The Junii Silani, connected with the Aemilii and
withtheimperialfamilythroughJulia,granddaughterofAugustus(10),
and with Gaetulicus through adoption, had nothing to gain from
Sejanus, should he take over in toto,and supported him only insofar
as it served theirpurpose. So, too, with the Aemilii Lepidi who "had
been perilouslyclose to the supremepower with M. Aemilius Lepidus,
(1) A similar reasonmayexplainwhyso manynovibecameconsuls in thelastten

yearsofAugustus' principáteandthefirstnineofTiberius.The nobiles
hadseriously
declined in number during thecivilwarsandwerenothaving children,hencetheLex
Mia in 18B.C.andtheLexPapiaPoppata in9. Theyhad,however, beguntoincrease,
theirnumbers during thepeacefulcentralperiodofAugustus'
reign,as hadthe'Caesa-
riannobles'andby20-25their sonshadreachedtheagetoholdtheconsulship.
Sealey,
op.dt.,(inn. 1,p. 62) p. 110,doesnottakethisintoaccount.Cf.Allen,op.cit.(in
n. 3, p. 64),p. 4.
(2) Cf.Sealey,op.dt.,p. 105.
(3) Tao., Ann., II, 59, 1.
(4) Tac., Hist.,IV, 48, 2 ; C.I.L.,XIV, 3665.
(5) Tac., Am.,Ill, 66, 1-69,6.
(6) Loc.cit.(inn.2 above).
(7) Tac., Arm., IV, 71,4.
(8) Loc.cit.(inn.5 above).
(9) Tao., Arm., VI, 9, 3.
(10) Syme, R.R.,p. 495.

the triumvir,and L. Aemilius Paullus, husband of the youngerJu-

lia" (1). Whatever support they may have lent Sejanus served the
familyinterests,and they could be counted on to drop him as soon
as the ambivalence of his position became evident. Three other
senatorsof rank were accused after Sejanus' fall ; C. Annius Pollio,
his son, L. Annius Vinicianus, and Mamercus Scaurus. These did
not have the charges against them withdrawn, but Tiberius post-
poned the hearing indefinitely.
Both Sealey (2) and Stewart (8) attempt to show that a powerful
group perhaps headed by the Cornelii Lentuli and including the
Junii Silani and other adherents such as Annius Pollio, Annius
Vinicianus, Mamercus Scaurus, Calvisius Sabinus, L. Apronius,
(father-in-lawof Gaetulicus), L. Seius Tubero, the Cassii Longini,
comprised the party of Sejanus, though he may not have been the
leader (4). Sumner's theory,however, that Sejanus had no family
connections with the Cornelii Lentuli, weakens this hypothesis.
It affectsSejanus' auctoritaswith that family and makes it more
understandable that the familysurvived the elimination of Sejanus.
Tacitus, in spite of Adam's contention (5), probably reflectsthe opi-
nions of the Roman aristocracyof Sejanus' time when he calls Se-
janus a municipal adulterer (e), and has Tiberius reply to Sejanus'
request forLivilla's hand in the followingvein, Fallerisenim , Seiane,si
temansurum in eodemordine
putas,et Liviam, quae Gaio Caesarì, moxDruso
nuptafuerit,ea menteacturam, ut cum e quit e Romano senescat(7).
Gaetulicus did, to be sure, allow his daughter to be engaged to
Sejanus' son, but Tacitus quite probably gives the correct reasons
for his doing so (8).
In a recent article Weinrib (ö) convincinglyconnects an impor-
(1) Syme, op.cit.,p. 494.

(2) Op.cit.,p. 111.
(3) Z. Stewart,Sejanus andSeneca
, Gaetulicus in A.J.P., 74, 1953,p. 70-85.
(4) Sealey,loc.cit.(inn. 1, p. 78). Allen,op.cit.(inn. 3, p. 64), p. 2, thinks
thattheparty ofSejanusmaybedisregarded sinceitwasnever a partyinthetruesense
oftheword."It wasmerely a private effort
whichcontained fewprominent people
and collapsedas soonas itsleaderwasgone".
(5) Op.cit.(in n. 1, p. 62), p. 72.
(6) Tac., Arm.,IV, 3, 4.
(7) Tac., Arn.,IV, 40, 4.
(8) Tag.,Ann., VI, 30, 3. Cf.VI, 8, 2 ff.
(9) Op.cit.(in п. 2, p. 64), p. 272.

80 H. W. BIRD
tant number of senatorial families, the Scribonii, Pompeii, Furii

Camilii, Arruntii,Aemilii and the Cornelii Sullae. Between 23, i.e.
the death of Drusus, and May 9th, 31 no member of these families
achieved a consulship, and only one, Sextus Pompeius, received a
proconsulship in the major senatorial provinces (*). Yet Faustus
Cornelius Sulla became cos. suff.on May 9th, 31, and L. Arruntius
Furius Camillus Scribonianus was elected consul for32 (2). Further-
more L. Arruntius,his adoptive father(3), was attacked by Sejanus
in 31 (4), but the case against him was quashed by Tiberius, which
may have been a major reason for many to suspect that Sejanus'
positionwas crumbling. In factArruntiushad prosperedremarkably
under Tiberius and his ten years or so of absentee governorshipof
Spain may trace its origin to the pre-Sejanian period, and was a
mark of signal distinction(6). All of this seems to indicate that the
whole nexus of familiesdescribed above would be hostile to the chief
ministerwhile being "loyal" to the emperor,and Tiberius was even-
tually made aware of this. It is quite credible that Sejanus' action
in saving Tiberius' life in 26 obscured the emperor's view of the
political situation, and his retreat to Capri would hardly make it
easier for him to review the position ; Sejanus would see to that (e).
One may observe that attacks on Nero Caesar commence afterthe
Cave incident.
Sealey (7) notes a high proportion of nobiles in the consular
lists between 24-31 ; only nine novi hominesgaines the office. He
is right in thinkingthat nobilesand prefectwere tied by bonds of
mutual expediency, that "many senators sought his favour". This
was part of the plan to disable the party of Agrippina and Nero,
but there seems to be little evidence of loyal attachment. Tiberius
(1) C.I.G.,3571attests hisproconsulship ofAsia,butthedates27-30areconjectural.

(2) Degrassi,F.C.I.R.,p. 10.
(3) Weinrib, op.at. (in n. 2, p. 64), p. 273.
(4) Dio, 58,8, 3. Cf.Tac.,Ann., VI, 47,2. Forthiscasevid.,Rogers,op.cit. (in
n. 5,p. 73),p. 37ff.; Weinrib,op. (inn. 2, p. 63), p. 52 ff.
cit.
(5) Weinrib, op.cit.(inn. 2, p. 4), p. 276,277. Marsh,op.cit.,p. 191,considers
(erroneously)thatthedevicewassuggested bySejanusso thatpotential
capaces
imperii
shouldnothavepossession ofarmed provinces. Ifso,whydidTiberiusappointArruntius
in thefirst place?
(6) Tag., Ann.,IV, 41, 2.
(7) Op. cit.(in n. 1, p. 62), p. 111.

would no doubt desire his deputy at Rome to have support and to

gain this by means of patronage, but the major props of Sejanus'
power were (a) Tiberius, (b) the praetorian guard. The emperor
did not know exactly what support Sejanus might count upon from
the nobilesin 31, but he did not underestimatethe potential threat
of the praetorians (x).
Tiberians
What of Tiberius' personal following? L. Pomponius Flaccus
(cos. 17) and Lucius Piso the Pontifexwere Tiberius' boon compa-
nions (2). Syme lists a few other Psiones (3), including the governor
of Syria, Cn. Piso, and his brotherwho threatenedto quit Rome (4)
because of its corruption. These, as far as one can see, were all
Tiberians. Further,the old Cossus Cornelius Lentulus (cos. 1 B.C.),
fatherof Gaetulicus, was accused in 25 of plottingagainst Tiberius.
(Does one see the work of Sejanus here ?). He burst out laughing,
the senate was in an uproar. This led Tiberius to say, "I am no
longer fit to live if even Lentulus hates me" (6). The gentleman
was probably urban prefectin 33, succeeding Piso (e). A On. Len-
tulus, possibly the augur (cos. 14 B.C.) was with Drusus during the
Pannonian mutinyin 14, and Tacitus intimatesthat he was a friend
of Tiberius (7). The same person joined with Pomponius Flaccus,
Asinius Gallus, Papius Mutilus and Lucius Apronius in the attacks
on Libo Drusus after the latter's death (8). In the case of Silanus
in 22, he again acted adnuenteTiberioto exempt Silanus' mother's
propertyfrombeing confiscated(9). Finally Cn. Cornelius Lentulus
and Seius Tubero were implicated in Vibius Serenus' alleged con-
spiracy in 24, but immediately acquitted (10). Both were said to be
(1) Dio, 58, 9, 2 ff.

(2) Vell., II, 129; Suet.,Tib.,42; cf.Seneca,Epp.,83, 14ff.Suetonius relates
thatFlaccuswasmadegovernor ofSyria,L. Pisocityprefect,aftera party.
(3) T., p. 750. Cf.SomePisones in Tacitus , 46, 1956,p. 17-21.
in J.R.S.
(4) Tac., Ann,, II, 34, 1.
(5) Dio, 58, 24, 8.
(6) P./.Ä.«,2, G. 1380.
(7) Ann.,I, 27, 1. Cf.Sumner, op.cit.(inn. 1,p. 62),p. 135,n. 6.
(8) Tac., Arm., II, 32, 1-2.
(9) Tac., Ann.,Ill, 68, 2.
(10) Tac., Arm.IV, 29, 1.
6

82 H. W. BIRD
intimate friendsof Tiberius, and Lentulus was described as being

very old. He died the followingyear (*).
Other friendsof Tiberius were C. Rubellius Blandus (suff.18) (2),
and L. Nonius Asprenas (suff. 29). The latter's father was cos.
suff. in 6 and was connected with Varus (8), and with Calpurnii
Pisones, having marrieda Calpúrnia. His uncle, Sex. Nonius Quinc-
tilianus (cos. 8) was also presumably Tiberian. P. Cornelius Dola-
bella (cos. 10) was related to these by marriage, and had no reason
to feelgratefultoSejanus afterhisAfricantriumphhad beenrefused(4).
Perhaps, too, we should add the names of M. Servilius Nonianus
(cos. 35), L. Salvius Otho (suff. 33) and the brothersC. Poppaeus
Sabinus and Q. Poppaeus Secundus (coss. 9) to the list of Tiberius'
supporters(5).
One "new" familybefriendedby Caesar and Augustus was that
of the Asinii Polliones. Pollio was consul in 40 B.C., his son, C.
Asinius Gallus (•), married a daughter of Agrippa, Vipsania, former
wife of Tiberius, and became consul in 8 B.C. The latter's sons
were C. Asinius Pollio (cos. 23), M. Asinius Agrippa (cos. 25) and
Asinius Saloninus. Saloninus was intended as husband forTiberius'
granddaughter in 22 before a premature death prevented the mar-
riage. This family was clearly trusted by Tiberius until 30 when
its senior member, Asinius Gallus, was condemned by the senate
as he dined on Capri with the emperor (7). Gallus had annoyed
Tiberius in 14 at themeetingon the accession (8), but had continued
to play a prominent role in debates (•). Finally, in 30, he was
charged with being jealous of the emperor's friendshipfor Sejanus,
but Dio (10) is not certain whether Gallus courted Sejanus sincerely
because he thought Sejanus could be the next emperor, because
(1) Tao., Arm.,IV, 44, 1.

(2) Tao., Am.,VI, 27, 1.
(3) Syme, R.R., finalstemma.
(4) Tac., ЛЯП., IV, 26, 1.
(5) Sealey,op.cit.(inп. 1,p. 62),p. 107,112. ForM. Servilius Nonianus vid.,
Syme, TheHistorian Servilius
Nonianus inHermes , 92,1964, p. 408-424; forL. Salvius
Otho
vid.,Suet.,Otho,1.
(6) Tag.,Arm., I, 12,4.
(7) Dio, 58, 3, 3.
(8) Dio, 57, 2, 5 ; Tac., Amt., I, 12,2.
(9) Tao.,Ann.,I, 76,1; 77,3 ; II, 32,2 ; 33,2 ; 35,1-2; 36,1; IV,20,1; 30,1 ; 71,2.
(10) Dio, 58, 3, 1-2.

he fearedTiberius,or, and thisisenlightening,because he was plotting

against Sej anus and proposed so many honours for the regent in
order to make him a source of annoyance to the emperor. Gallus
committed suicide in 33 (x) and, upon the death of Agrippina
somewhat later that year, he was accused by Tiberius of having
committed adultery with her (2).
Apparently the Asinii were trusted until 30 (if we take into
account the consulships of two of Gallus' sons and the projected
marriage alliance of the third), but then Tiberius changed his mind.
This occurs in Dio's text (8) beforethat author notes any suspicions
of Sejanus by Tiberius. What were the reasons ? Surely not friend-
ship with Sejanus ? One possible reason is that Gallus had begun
to support Agrippina and her family and may have hoped for a
marriage with her (hence rumours of adultery). He was, afterall,
a "capax imperii"(4) and might have seen that the present situation
could not last. Tiberius would hardly attack him in 30 formarrying
Vipsania or forannoying him, in 14. Tacitus informsus that Agrip-
pina was materterato Gallus' children and that Sejanus had defended
him in 28 nonGalli amore , verumut cunctationes
principůopperiretur(6).
Even in 30 he meritedspecial treatment: he was kept under house-
arrestforthreeyears (•). The reasons are not clear but it is perhaps
at this juncture or soon afterwardsthat Tiberius begins to have
second thoughts about his chief minister,as about Gallus, whose
friend, Syriacus, was executed ostensibly for his friendship with
Gallus (7). Does one here detect a possible plot on behalf of Agrippi-
na and Drusus, hence Tiberius' willingness to send the latter to
Rome and Sejanus' immediate attack upon him (8) ? In 30 Sejanus,
his "partisans" and his opponents must have considered that he
was near to the goal of his ambitions, the throne(®),or, more pro-
bably, the regency. Even a familyconnection had been secured to
(1) Tao., Ann.,VI, 23, 1; Dio, 58, 23, 6.

(2) Tao., Ann.,VI, 25, 2.
(3) Dio, 58, 3, 1.
(4) Tao., Ann.,I, 13,2.
(5) Tao., Ann.,IV, 71, 2-3.
(6) Dio, 58, 3, 4.
(7) Dio, 58, 3, 7.
(8) Dio, 58, 3, 8.
(9) R.E.,s.v.AeliuSyno. 133. Butcf.Marsh,op.cit,,p. 187ff.

84 H. W. BIRD
the house of the Julio-Claudians by his betrothal to Livilla (*),

ex-wife of Gaius and Drusus, or Julia, her daughter (a). Vellerns
would hardly have writtenin such glowing termsin 30 if theposition
of Sejanus had not seemed secure (8). Certain factorscontributed
to the strenghtof Sejanus' position. Agrippina, Nero and Drusus
had been eliminated by 30, Gaius was only eighteen on August
31st, 30 (4), and Gemellus was at most eleven years old (5). The
Emperor was in his seventies(•) and likely to grow more dependent
each year. It is not surprising,then, that honours were heaped
upon Sejanus (7), and he became consul designate forJanuary, 31.
As furtherinstances of the emperor's trust Tiberius prepared to
hold the consulship with him, and only twice before in his reign
had he held the magistracy,in 18 and 21, each time with his heir
designate, Germanicus and Drusus (8), He also granted Sejanus the
proconsular impérium ('). Sejanus, too, had sought to gain allies
among the governors of the nearer armies of note. Thus he may
have been instrumental in having Gaetulicus made governor of
Upper Germany in 29, and the latter's daughter was engaged to
Sejanus' son. Moreover L. Apronius, father-in-lawof Gaetulicus,
had shortly before been give the command in Lower Germany.
In addition, Poppaeus Sabinus was governor in Moesia, Macedón
and Achaea ; his daughter was married to Sejanus' friend, T.
Ollius (10). Marsh believes that L. Arruntius,legate of Spain from
23/24, and L. Aelius Lamia, legate of Syria, were also neutralized
by Sejanus, who persuaded Tiberius to keep them at Rome (u).
This now seems improbable (u). Finally, Sejanus attempted to gain
(1) Tao.,Ann., VI, 8, 3 ; Dio, 58,7,5 ; Suet.,Tit.,65. Cf.Sumner, op.eit.(inn. 1,

p. 62), p. 144,note44.
(2) Zon.,XI, 2.
(3) Vell., II, 127-128.
(4) Suet.,Calig.,8.
(5) Tac., Ami.,II, 84, 1.
(6) Suet., Tib.,5è
(7) Dio, 58,4, 4; 8, 4; Suet., Tib. 65.
(8) Tac., Ann.,VI, 8, 3 ; Dio, 58,6, 1 ff.; Suet., Tib.,65.
(9) Dio, 58, 7, 4.
(10) Tac., Ann., XIII, 45, 1.
(11) Marsh,op.cit.,p. 191-192.
(12) Cf.D. M. PiPPiDi, Autour de Tibère,Bucharest,1944,p. 114ff.; Syme,T.,p. 442-
443; Weinrib, op.cit.(in n. 2, p. 64), p. 276.

popular support by some sort of display on the Aventine (1). The

populace, however, proved as fickleas Sej anus' other specious sup-
porters. Sejanus was reviled by them, his statues were overthrown,
and this obviously antipathetic attitude encouraged the senate to
reconvene and condemn the ministerto death (2).
The CriticalPeriod
Sometimein 31, ifwe followDio, Tiberius began toentertaindoubts
about his minister. We do not know when, precisely,or why. There
seem to be three possible reasons for Sejanus' fall, (a) He planned
to assassinate Tiberius (8) (and Gaius) and usurp the throne imme-
diately. (b) He intended to await the former'sdeath, in the mean-
time eliminatingthe latter. In eithercase his plan was communicated
to Tiberius, who took the necessary steps, (c) The required sena-
torial support for the emperor's plans, which included the regency
(or more) for Sejanus, was with drawn, at firstwithout Sejanus'
knowledge, and Tiberius was forced to topple his minister(4).
That Sejanus intended to assassinate Tiberius (except as a last
resortto save his own skin) is acceptable to neither Marsh (5) nor
Syme (e), who says, "Why plot to remove Caesar his benefactor,
the source of his power ? Dynastic loyalty had struck deep roots
by now. Sej ал us could hardly hope to seize and hold the supreme
authorityafter an assassination". Motivation for any plot of long
standing is entirelylacking. Even if Sejanus managed to control
Rome by means of the praetorians he had to consider that the at-
titudes of the armies and their commanders might well be preju-
diced by such use of the guard. These were not popular with the
armies in general forvarious reasons (7). Sejanus would have to be
very sure of Gaetulicus and Apronius and of their ability to sway
(1) Syme, SejanusontheAventine , 84, 1956,p. 257ff.

in Hermes
(2) Dio, 58, 11, 3.
(3) Suet., Tib,,65; Jos.,A.J., 18,66.
(4) A. Boddington, whose
Sejanus, in A.J.P., 84, 1963,p. 16.
Conspiracy?
(5) Op.cit.,p. 204-310.
(6) Г., 405; 752-754.
(7) Tac.,Ann., I, 17,6. Theyreceivedhigherpay,larger donatives, served16years
insteadofthe"normal" andwhere
20ofthelegionary, stationedjust outsideRome after
20 (Dio, 57, 19,6). Cf.G. H. Stevenson, C.A.H., X., p. 233; P. A. Brunt,Payand
intheRoman
Superannuation ArmyinPapersoftheBritish Schoolat Rome , XVIII, 1950,p.
50-71.

86 H. W. BIRD
their armies if he were to attempt an assassination of Tiberius,

unless he undertookthe attempt in self-defenceand as a last resort.
Moreover Tiberius had given several indications that he intended
his ministerto take over de iurethose responsibilitiesof regent (or
emperor) which he was already performingde facto.
It is feasible that Sejanus resentedbeing made regentforGaius (x)
and was motivated to act on this account. But surelyit would have
been fareasier to accomplishthe deathsofAgrippina and Drusus with
the backing ofTiberius (afterall, they did have popular support) (8)
and then, upon Tiberius' death, eliminate Gaius and possibly Ge-
mellus, as happened in the case of Agrippa Postumus. Thus Ti-
berius would have incurred the odium for the executions of Agrip-
pina and Drusus, while a ready precedentwould be at hand forthe
murder of Gaius. Gemellus posed no immediate threat. He was
too young and also a son of Livilla, Sejanus' intended bride (or
mother-in-law).
If this argument is accepted it seems more likely that Sejanus'
attempted coup and his fall were due to the withdrawal of impor-
tant support probably in early 31 (8). Syme notices that the mobiles
weremenaced bythepowerstrugglebetween the partyof Germanicus
and his familyand that of Sejanus (4), and that the latter was the
leader of his faction (5). But Sejanus may merely have been ac-
cepted as the figureheadofthispartyforthe sake ofexpediencyduring
the attackson the factionof Germanicus and Agrippina. Even before
30, however,therecould have been dissensionregardinghis position,
especially in the event of his regency. Both Nonius Asprenas and
Junius Blaesus were Tiberius' men at his accession, the formera
proconsul of Africa, the latter legate in Pannonia (•). Blaesus and
his sons fell after Sejanus' death, Nonius Asprenas survived: so
did Gaetulicus and, as far as we know, L. Apronius.
The events of 30-31 appear to be especially significant. It is at
thisjuncture that Sejanus overplayed his hand. Becoming a member
(1) Dio, 58, 8, 1.

(2) Tac., Am.,V, 4, 2.
(3) Cf.BODDINGTON, loe. cit.(in n. 4, p. 85).
(4) Ä.Ä.,p. 505.
(5) Ibid.,p. 384. Butcf.Allen, op. cit. (inn. 3, p. 64),p. 2 ; Boddington,
op.cit.
(in n. 4, p. 85), p. 13.
(6) Tag.,Ann,, I, 53, 6 ; 1, 16,2.

of the Senate by special adlectioor by virtueof hispraetorian insignia ,

in
granted 20, he was elected to the consulshipwith Tiberius in 30 (*).
The consulship was still the highest titular office,and had begun to
be viewed once again as the preserve of the nobility,whether "re-
publican" or "Caesarian" (2). Many equestrians and novi homines
had indeed received positionsof power and responsibility,but "the
old nobility of Rome, patrician or plebian, affected to despise
knightsor municipal men ; which did not, however, debar marriage
or discredit inheritance" (3). Sejanus5 consulship by itself might
still have been acceptable, but, since Tiberius shared the consulship
with him and had introduced him into the imperial family,and it
had been decreed that they should be consuls together every five
years, it signifiedthat Sejanus was heir-apparent, either as regent
or (less likely) as emperor.
Furthermore, possibly with Tiberius' connivance, Sejanus had
engineered some kind of popular election on the Aventine (not on
the Campus Martius) (4). He clearly felt the need of popular
support, and the plebeians in 30 were not a mere mob (6). Never-
theless, while the plebs may have felt flatteredby this action, the
nobiles, and perhaps Tiberius too, would consider it an unnecessary
derogation of their prestige and power which had already suffered
with the growth of Praetorian power.
Finally Sejanus and his son were made priests with Caligula by
Tiberius, and the proconsularpower was awarded him by the senate,
who also voted that the consuls of each year should emulate him
in the conduct of theiroffice(e).
In 31 Sejanus had become roaovroç rfj re vneQo%f¡rov q)qovr¡fia -
roç xal г ф /леуевесrfjçêÇovoíaç that he appeared to be emperor
(1) Dio,57,19,7 ; cf.H. F.Jolowicz ,Historical

Introduction toRoman Law, Cambridge,
1961,p. 338-340.
(2) Sealey,op. cit.(inn. 1,p. 62),p. 110notesthat23 nobiles andonly9 noviheld
theconsulship between 24-31.Butwhybeginat 24? Thesametendency is tobenoted
between 19-23,ie. it beganwhileGermanicus wasin theeast.
(3) Syme, R.R.,p. 357. Fora contemporary propaganda on themerits
discourse of
novi with
homines, especial reference
to vid.,
Sejanus, Vell., II, 128. For theantipathy
ofthenobiles tonovihominesvid.,Tac.,Ann.,IV, 3, 4 ; 40,4 ; VI, 27,1.
(4) I.L.S.,6044 = E.J., 53; C.I.L.,VI, 10213.
(5) Dio, 58,2, 8. Cf.in general Syme, op.cit.(in n. 1,p. 85),p. 257ff.
(6) Dio, 58, 7, 4.

88 H. W. BIRD
and Tiberius a kind of vr¡olaq%o<;(8). Two other statements of

Dio may throw some light on the situation. In 30 Asinius Gallus
was accused of being jealous of the emperor's friendshipforSejanus
and had courted Sejanus "perhapsby way of a plot to make Sejanus
irksome to the emperor and so cause his ruin" (4). Then, in 39,
Caligula rounds on the senate and accuses them of making Sejanus
conceited, corruptinghim and destroyinghim (5). This may mean
that certain senatoriais considered that the only way to ruin the
ministerwas to make him go too farand therebyincur the suspicions
of the emperor. A wispering campaign could then be set afoot to
persuadeTiberiusthatSejanus intendedtoeliminateCaligula, to whom
the emperorprobably intended to bequeath the empire under Seja-
nus' regency.
Sejanus appears to have overreached himself in offendingthe
dignitasof the nobilesand may have forceda coalition of two factions
which seem to emerge at this stage (*).
The Plot and Its Suppression

There are several signs that a plot of some kind did take place.
Two letterswere supposedlywrittento Tiberius, the one by Antonia,
motherof Germanicus (2), the otherby Apicata, firstwifeof Sejanus.
letterinformedTiberius about a plotofSejanus toseize power,
The first
and this led him, we are told, to take the actions recounted above.
In support of the statement that some sort of plot did take place
Sejanus is described on an inscription (the "official" version) as
hostisp. R. (4), and Suetonius writesthat Sejanus was
perniciosissimus
res novas molientem and that Tiberius was still afraid even oppressa
(3) Dio, 58, 5, 1.

(4) Dio, 58, 3, 1, 2.
(5) Dio, 59, 16,4.
(1) R. S. Rogers,op.cit. (inп. 5,p. 73),p. 41 hasconvincingly
shownthatArrunthis
wasimpeached between July1standOct.1st,31. He maintains thatArruntius
wasthe
"opposition leader"inthesenate andSejanus hadtogetridofhim.Hencetheindictment
. Tiberius
formaiestas ralizedthatifSejanuscouldcrush hewouldbe master
Arruntius,
ofRome.Theempereor thereforeordered Cossus Lentulus
Cornelius toforbid
theindict-
mentofimperial legates.Thesenatesupported ThisdroveSejanustocon-
Arruntius.
spiracy and brought abouthisfall.
(2) Jos.,A.J., 18, 181ff. Cf.Dio, 66, 14, 1.
(3) Dio, 58, 11,6; Tac., Arm., IV, 11,2.
(4) I.L.S., 157.

coniuratione(1). Tacitus reports the charge against P. Vitellius,

master of the aerariummilitare, that he was ready to use its funds to
aid Sejanus in resnovae(2). Furthermore,Regulus was provoked into
attacking his colleague, Fulcinius Trio, as noxiumconiurationis (3).
Three Roman knights were afterwards found guilty coniurationis
crimine(4). Another knight,however, M. Terentius, included him-
self among cunctosqui novissimi fuimus,and referredto
consiliiexpertes
insidiaein rempublicam , Consiliacaedis adversumimperatorem(5). In ad-
dition, Satrius Secundus is described as coniurationis indice(e), and
he is mentioned by Terentius (7) as a creatureof Sejanus, for whom
he indicted Cremutius Cordus in 25 (8).
The letter of Antonia, then, is one part of a chain of evidence
indicating that some kind of conspiracy did take place, but most
probably this was a counter measure planned by Sejanus and some
ofhis adherents,such as P. Vitellius (the treasurywas vital to Sejanus
forpaying donatives and other bribes), when the ministersensed that
his position was beginning to crumble (9). Perhaps Sextus Marius,
the richestman in Spain (10),was also implicated. Sejanus' financial
needs would be great and Marius may well have been willing to
bargain wealth for power. He had been saved fromprosecution by
Tiberius' open interventionin 25 (11),and was said to have been an
intimatefriendof the emperor(12),but Sejanus may have had a hand
in the dismissal. Certainly Tacitus either disbelieved or was igno-
rantofthe storythat Marius was merelytryingto protecthis daughter
fromTiberius' lust (13). It may be significantthat Tacitus includes
this case in his account immediately before the general executions
(l) m, 65, 2.
(2) Tac., Ann.,V, 8, 1.
(3) Tac., Arm.,V, 11, 1.
(4) Tac., Arm.,VI, 14, 1.
(5) Tac., Ann.,VI, 8, 3 ff.
(6) Tac., Ann.,VI, 47, 2.
(7) Tac., Ann.,VI, 8, 5.
(8) Tac., Ann.,IV, 34, 1.
(9) Cf.Syme,T., p. 753; Charlesworth, , X., p. 637; cf.Marsh,op.cit.,
C.A.H.
p. 306ff.; Furneaux, op.cit.,p. 150ff.; Boddington,op.cit.(inn. 4, p. 85),p. 7-8.
(10) Tac., Ann.,VI, 19, 1.
(11) Tac., Ann.,IV, 36, 1.
(12) Dio, 58, 22, 2.
(13) Ibid.

90 H. W. BIRD
of all the Sejanians (or suspects) still languishing in prison. The

latter would not be persons of note or Tacitus would have adduced
theirnames, and one notes that numbersofSejanus' knownor alleged
supporters in the conspiracy were equestrians (1).
There appears littleevidence to suggestthat Sejanus had nurtured
conspiratorial aims for long, and too much should not be made of
Tacitus' statements at the beginning of book IV (2). Whatever
took place was in all likelihood a desperate attempt at self-
coniuratio
preservation,and the fact emerges that Sejanus did not have the
sympathy or support of those who might have aided him. No
attempt was made to warn him, no insurrectionbroke out in his
favour (8). He was not popular even with him own "party". In-
deed he was expendable.
The letter of Apicata is cited by both Tacitus and Dio (4), and
the poisoning of Drusus is also accepted by Suetonius (6). Moti-
vation for Sejanus' attack on Drusus has already been discussed,
and, in the main, followsDio (e). One major reason for Livilla's
complicity may have been anxiety for her children (7). But why
did Apicata send the letterand commit suicide ? Revenge on Livilla
has been argued by one scholar (8). Syme, however, is sceptical
of the whole tradition (9). At any event, Apicata had been an
encumbrance in 23 and was sacrificed,willinglyor not, by the am-
bitious and unscrupulous minister.
Tiberius was veryunsure of his ground. We are informedthat he
even ordered Macro to use Drusus as a figurehead in the event of
violence (10) (thoughthismay well have been a popular rumour), and
(1) Tac., Ann.,VI, 14, 1. Senegasaystheprisons werecrowded withSejanians,

., IX, IV, 17.
Controv
(2) Vid.,esp.Arm., IV, 3, 1 ff.
(3) Marsh,op.cit,,p. 307,believes thata plotwasorganized
it possible afterthe
deathofSejanusbyhisformer partisans.
(4) Vid.,n. 3, p. 88.
(5) Ttb ., 62.
(6) Dio, 57, 22, 1-2.
(7) Marsh,op.cit.,p. 163,note3. Salmon,A History oftheRaman World30 B.C.
toA.D. 138,p. 139.
(8) Marsh,op.cit.,p. 256.
(9) T., p. 402,752.
(10) Dio, 58,13,1 ; Suet.,Tib.,65. ForTiberius' vid.,alsoDio, 58,17,
suspicions
2-18,6

he had ships ready to convey him to one of the provincial armies (x).
It would be helpfulto know which army he had in mind. Possibly
the Syrian army : Aelius Lamia had long been absentee commander
there,and was made urban prefectthe followingyear, and Tiberius
made a special grant to the Syrian legions afterSej anus' death (2).
Moreover the old Cossus Cornelius Lentulus, Gaetulicus' father,
succeeded Lamia upon the latter's death (8), so the post was clearly
reserved for trusted Tiberians. Syria, too, was the key imperial
province in the east, possessed four legions, and could command
Egypt, with its two legions under an equestrian prefect,which was
itselfthe major granary of Rome (4).
Naturally enough the onus was upon the emperor to get rid of his
minister,and the latter's powerful position at Rome made this an
extremelyhazardous proposition. Ironically the emperor and Se-
janus were equally in peril : the major political figuresbehind the
strugglewere, for once, quite safe. In fact the very secrecy which
surrounded the affairleft them on the winning side, whatever the
outcome, and Tiberius realized this. Hence his extreme caution.
The emperor planned the overthrow of his minister with con-
summate skill. He was compelled to do so, since his own life would
be endangered if Sejanus became suspicious. A priesthood and the
proconsular powers were awarded to the minister presumably
after his consulship had expired in May (5), and only the tribuni-
cian power was lacking fora full Mitregentschaft.But hints were not
wanting that all was not well (e). Tiberius, however, was clearly
worried about the support Sejanus might enlist (7).
Before showing his hand he had made P. Memmius Regulus, a
trustedTiberian, consul on October 1st,31 (8). In addition he had
suborned Q. Naevius Macro, previously prefect of the Vigiles(9),
(1) Dio, ibid.; Suet.,ibid.

(2) Tac., Aim., VI, 27, 2 ; Suet., Tib.,48.
(3) Senega,Epp., 83, 15.
(4) ForSyriavid.,Anderson, C.A.H.,X, p. 280-282; forEgyptvid.,IdrisBell,
ibid.,p. 284ff.; itsgarrison, Anderson, ibid.,p. 243-244.
(5) Dio, 58, 7, 4.
(6) Dio, 58,6, 2 ff.; 8, 1; 9, 1 ff.Cf.Suet., Tib.,65, 1.
(7) Dio, 57,6, 2 ; 8, 2 ; 9, 2 ; Suet.,Tib.,65, 1 andesp.65,2.
(8) C.J.L.,X, 1233.
(9) A.E., 1957,no. 250.

92 н. W. BIRD
bribing him with the promise of the praetorian command (*), and
won over Graecinius Laco, then prefect of the Vigiles(2). These
were subsequently rewarded with money and grants of praetorian
and quaestorian rank (8). No use was made of the Urban Cohorts,
who were in closer contact with the praetorians (4).
On the night of October 17th, 31, Macro entered Rome with
secret instructions. He showed these to Memmius Regulus, appoin-
ted consul by Tiberius at the beginning of the month, and to Grae-
cinius Laco, prefectof the Vigiles. At dawn he attended the senate,
and assured an apparently wavering Sej anus that he was bringing
him the tribunician power. Then he showed the praetorians, who
were guarding the chief minister,his credentials fromthe emperor,
and promised them rewards (on the accession of a new prefect).
They were dismissed. Macro next instructedLaco to keep guard
while he hurried off to the camp, ¡ir¡ xal veœregiadelr}.
The long, involved letter was read. At firstit mildly rebuked
Sejanus, naming two of his senatorial associates who were to be
punished ; finally it stated that he was to be kept under guard.
Sejanus was too dumbfoundedto move. His erstwhilefriendsvanis-
hed, leaving him surrounded by hostile praetors and tribunes. Re-
gulus demanded that he should step forward: Sejanus was still too
astounded to do so. Finally he stood up, and Laco took his stand
beside him. A universal denunciation followed, but Regulus did
not move a vote of condemnation. Sejanus was merely led away
to prison by the consul, Laco, and the other magistrates(6).
His death occurred the same day ; the senate condemned him
at a second session after he had been treated with contumely by
the mob (e). His body was desecrated and his children subsequently
executed (7). Thereaftermany of his friendsand relativesalso suffe-
red and their propertywas for the most part confiscated(8).
(1) Dio, 58, 9, 2.

(2) Ibid.
(3) Dio, 58, 12,7.
(4) Furneaux,op.àt., I, p. 127.
(5) Dio, 58, 9, 3-10,8.
(6) Dio, 58, 11, 1 ff.; cf.Tao., Ann., VI, 25, 3.
(7) Dio, 58,11,5 ; Tao.,Ann.,V, 9, 1-2; FastiOstienses,E.-J.,p. 42; cf.Suet.,Tib.,
61. Vid.,abo BODDINGTON, op.cit.(in n. 4, p. 85), p. 11,n. 36.
(8) Dio,58,14,1ff.; Tao.,Ann., V,6, 1ff.; VI, 2, 1ff.; 19,1ff.; Senega,De Tranqu.,
11, 11; Juv.,X, 66; F.H.G.,IV, 570.

L. AELIUS SEIANUSANDHIS POLITICALINFLUENCE 93
The Aftermath
It is striking,as Sealey notes (1), that in 32, when many of the
humble Sejanians fell, the five senior senatoriais, Annius Pollio,
Annius Vinicianus, Mamercus Scaurus, Appius Silanus and Calvisius
Sabinus, brother-in-lawof Gaetulicus, all escaped punishment (2).
Moreover Calvisius Sabinus subsequently governed Pannonia (s),
although Caligula forcedhim to suicide in 39. In addition the great
friendof Annius Vinicianus, M. Aemilius Lepidus, married Drusilla
in 37-38 (4), Gaetulicus kept his command, and Apronius' adoptive
son, L. Apronius Caesianus, was praetor in 32 and consul in 39 (5).
While it is a fact that many of those who survived the crisis in
and after 32 were later implicated in the celebrated rebellion of
Gaetulicus in 39, this does not necessarilyreflecttheir attitude to-
wards Tiberius or Sejanus. It merelyshows that an organized group
of nobles did exist which was unfavourable to Caligula. They may
have been equally unfavourable to Sejanus when it became ap-
parent that Tiberius intended him to undertake the role of regent,
if this is what he did intend (e). L. Arruntius,a notable enemy of
Sejanus and a presumed Tiberian, could not tolerate the thoughtof
livingunder Caligula, and would not be alone in his apprehensions(7) .
Yet his adoptive son, L. ArruntiusCamillus Scribonianus, was put
in charge of the Dalmatian army by Caligula (8), and his natural
son, Paulus Arruntius,was with Caligula just before the assassina-
tion (9).
Two groups appear to emerge, the one centred around the Cor-
nelii Lentuli, the Calpurnii Pisones and theJunii Silani (l0),essentially
pro-Tiberian and successful under him, the other comprising the
Scribonii, Pompeii, Furii Camilli, Arruntii,Aemilii and the Cornelii
(1) Op. cit.(inn. 1,p. 62),p. 113. Cf.Boddington, op.cit.(inn. 4, p. 85),p. 11.
(2) Mamercus Scaurus wasdriven tosuicide twoyears laterbyMacrobutheperished
the
through personal of
enmityMacro, notbecause ofhisSejanian connections,soTacitus
informs us (Ann., VI, 29, 3).
(3) Dio, 59, 18,4; cf.Tac., Hist.,I, 48, 2.
(4) Dio, 59, 22, 6 ; cf.Jos.,A.J.,19, 1, 3 ; 1, 8.
(5) Dio, 58, 19, 1; 59, 13,2.
(6) Cf.A. Boddington, op.cit.(in n. 4, p. 85), p. 2-4; 16.
(7) Tac., Ann., VI, 48, ff. Cf.VI, 26, 1.
1
(8) P.I.R.*,A. 1140;I.L.S.,5950.
(9) Jos.,A.J.,19, 102.
(10) Cf.Syme, R.R., p. 497.

94 H. W. BIRD
Sullae (1), anti-Sejanian and ambitious. Gaetulicus was seemingly

able to bind the more violent and able survivingmembers of these
groups together in the late thirthiesin an attempt to topple the
Julio-Claudian familyfromits position. But in 31 such a coalition
had not fullymatured and the prime object of both groups was the
destructionof a mutual enemy, L. Aelius Seianus (2).
Reasonsfor a Coédition
Sejanus may well have built a formidable circle of clients, but
even if such familiesas the Cornelii Lentuli, the Calpurnii Pisones
and theJunii Silani were indebted to the minister,theywould hardly
relish it. Within this powerful group, which would presumably
continue to prosper without the minister'sassistance, there would
be many like Gaetulicus who were willing to profit by Sejanus'
influence, but not to serve him. This would offendtheir dignitas.
Tiberius was a Claudian by birth, a Julian by adoption, the "legi-
timate" heir of Augustus and the bulwark of senatorial dignity (3).
Even so Cn. Piso vix Tiberioconcedere , libereseius ut multuminfrades-
pectare(4), and his brother L. Piso (cos. 1 B.C.) was equally intran-
sigent (s). It is unlikelythat such familieswould brook the idea of
a municipal adulterer as regent or emperor.
One point, however, is beyond dispute. The Cornelii Lentuli,
Calpurnii Pisones and the Junii Silani could hardly have held so
many important commands without being at least "acceptable"
to Sejanus. Yet it is equally inconceivable that Tiberius would have
allowed such a concentrationof power in the hands of this group
prior to his departure from Rome unless he had trusted the men
concerned (e). L. Calpurnius Piso and M. Licinius Crassus Frugi
were elected consuls in 26 for the followingyear, and P. Cornelius
Lentulus was possiblycos.suff.in 26 ('). That same year M. Aemi-
lius Lepidus, an old comrade-in-armsof Tiberius, was governor of
(1) Weinrib, op. cit. (in n. 2, p. 64), p. 276-277.

(2) Therewere,however, somelinksbetween thetwogroups 24,sincein that
before
yearP. Cornelius Lentulus Scipiowascos.suff.Hisfather, ofthesamename,hadseen
cos.suff.in 2 ; vid.,Sumner, op.ctt.(in n. 1, p. 62), p. 139.
(3) Cf.F. E. Adoogk, C.A.H. , X, p. 603; M. P. Charlesworth, , X, p. 613ff.
C.A.H.
(4) TAC.,Am.,II, 43, 3.
(5) Tao., Am.,II, 34, 1.
(6) Vid.,п. 8, p. 77.
(7) Deorassi,op.cit.,p. 9.

Asia (1). No Sejanian influence here. Then Tiberius departed for

Capri. The group, however, continued to prosper. L. Nonius
Asprenas was one of the consuls of 29 and L. Piso pontifexwas urban
prefect in 32 and, upon his death that year, was given a public
funeral.
It appears, then, that the letter from Gaetulicus (2), although it
is attestedbyfama alone, gives an accurate account of what actually
occurred. In its wording it coincides with the defence of M. Te-
rentius (3). Both were acquitted : their accusers were exiled or
executed.
While Sejanus enjoyed Tiberius' favour he could expect not only
the adherence of his own supportersbut also the cooperation of the
powerfulfamilycomplex noted above and certainindividual careerists
seemingly associated with it through loyalty to the emperor. But
there appear to have been few real, hard-core Sejanians. Finally,
sometimein late 30 or early 31, thisgroup became disenchantedwith
the minister. His arrogance and aspirations made him suspect and
offended the dignitasof the very people upon whom he and the
emperor depended.
It now appears possible that another group, perhaps the one de-
scribed by Weinrib (4), had made overturesto some of the lukewarm
Tiberian-Sejanians such as Gaetulicus, and had succeeded in se-
ducing them. Two marriage connections would facilitate this. M.
Licinius Crassus Frugi (cos. 27) had married a Scribonia and M.
Junius Silanus Torquatus (cos. 19), who was proconsul of Africa
from 32-c. 37, had married an Aemilia Lepida. Weinrib's group,
apart fromthe favoured position of L. Arruntius,had been in the
political wildernessfor years, and Sejanus was no friendof Arrun-
tius (6). They could hardly be expected to welcome the minister's
"regency". The Tiberians, too, who had accepted the ministeras
long as he posed no threat to their ascendancy, had become uncer-
tain of the novushomobecause of the events of 30-31. Tiberius may
have been cruel : he was still nobilisand, to them at least, predictable.
(1) Syme, Marcus Lepidus, CapaxImperiiin J.R.S.,45, 1955,p. 22 if.

(2) Tac., Arm., VI, 30, 3.
(3) Tac., Arm., VI, 8, Iff.; Dio, 58, 14,3.
(4) Loe
. .
cit (in п. 2, p. 64).
(5) Cf.Dio, 58, 8, 3; Tac., Arm., VI, 48, 1.

96 H. W. BIRD
The Last Years of Tiberius

If Weinrib's prosopographical findings(x) are accepted, fresh
lightis thrownupon the reign of Tiberius and the political struggle
which took place during Sejanus' period of power and afterwards.
A new and powerfulnexus of families emerges which produced no
consul while Sejanus was influencing the elections. Nevertheless
just beforethe ministerwas deposed, Faustus Cornelius Sulla became
cos. stiff,on May 9th, 31 (2), and he belonged to the familynexus
listed above. Tiberius, however,could not trusthim to play the role
necessaryforhis designs, and P. Memmius Regulus was substituted
for him on October 1st (8). The followingtwo years are, perhaps,
even more significant. In 32 L. Arruntius (Furius) Camillus Scri-
bonianus became consul (4), and he linked three of the major fa-
milies of Weinrib's nexus. It is, moreover, possible that the other
consuldesignatus of that year, Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, husband
of Agrippina the younger (5) and fatherof the emperor Nero, was
also drawn into the emergentpower-group (e). In 37 he was accused
with L. Arruntiusand Vibius Marsus of being involved withAlbucil-
la (7). Tiberius, however, seems to have trustedDomitius : he was
the only consul to hold officeforthe whole year duringthe last period
of the reign, though this may have been because of his imperial
connections (8). His associate in office was replaced in July (5)
by A. Vitellius, almost certainlya trustedTiberian. The latter had
held his brother,Publius, in custody after the suppression of Seja-
nus (®). In 33 of the four consuls (10) two were presumably staunch
Tiberians, L. Livius Ocella Sulpicius Galba and his replacement,
(1) Op.cit.(inn.2,p.64),vid.,esp.p. 272-274 ; cf.Boddington, (inn. 4,p.85),

op.cit.
p. 15, note46.
(2) Degrassi,op.cit.,p. 10.
(3) Ibid.
(4) Ibid.
(5) Dio, 58, 20, 1.
(6) He isdescribed asa manofnoblesimplicity byVelleius(II, 10,2),butSuetonius
gives a verydifferent ofhim(Nero,
picture 5). He wasthesonofAntonia maior,grandson
of M. Antony, and cousinof Germanicus, Claudiusand Livilla.
(7) Tao., Arm., VI, 47, 2 ff.; Dio, 58, 27, 2.
(8) Dio, loc.cit.; cf.Deorassi,loc.at. A reason forDomitiusprolonged consulship
is givenbyDio, 58, 20, 1.
(9) Deorassi,loc.cit.
(10) Suet.,Vit.,2.
(11) Deorassi,loc.cit.

L. Salvius Otho. Galba, the subsequent emperor,had enjoyedJulia

Augusta's patronage, his fatherhad married one of her distant re-
lations, and Galba himselfhad inheriteda sizeable legacy fromher,
although Tiberius had not paid it (1). His wife, however, was
an Aemilia Lepida (2), and, as such, connected with the family
nexus described above. Otho benefitedfrom Tiberius' patronage ;
his daughter had been betrothed to Drusus, son of Germanicus,
and his father, M. Salvius Otho, had enjoyed Julia Augusta's fa-
vour (3). A third consul of that year, L. Cornelius Sulla Felix, most
certainly belonged to Weinrib's complex, which had apparently
gained three consulships within three years. The group, however,
may have been suspect. Another loyal Tiberian became consul in
34, L. Vitellius. His son Aulus, the futureemperor, spent his boy-
hood with Tiberius on Capri, and supposedly secured the consulship
for his father by surrenderingto Tiberius' advances (4). Either it
was a privilege forthe young Vitellius to be broughtup with Caligula
on Capri, or he was a hostage for the good behaviour of his father.
The formerhypothesis is more likely, since L. Vitellius was legate
in Syria from35-39, and this post appears to have been reservedby
Tiberius for trusted men. Cn. Piso held the position from 17-19,
L. Aelius Lamia for many years until 32, Pomponius Flaccus from
32-33. The latter was succeeded by L. Vitellius.
Between 33-37 the consular lists show a very high proportion of
novihomines(5), and all of the families which played an important
role in Tiberius' reign, the Calpurnii Pisones, the Cornelii Lentuli
etc., or which belonged to the nexus described by Weinrib are
conspicuously absent. Perhaps they had no eligible sons. Another
possibilityoccurs. Tiberius met the demands of this new power
group in the years 31-33, but tried to offsettheir influence by ad-
vancing men whom he considered loyal to himselfpersonally. There
were few enough of these, for the emperor was rightlysuspicious of
almost everyoneafterthe revelationsof 31 and may have used Macro
(1) Suet.,Galb.,5, 2.
(2) Suet.,Tib.,5, 1.Also,in 36 Galba'selderbrother, Gaius,wasdriven to suicide
by Tiberius (Tac., Ann.,VI, 40, 2). Sealey,op.cit.(inn. 1,p. 62),p. 113,
mistakely
describeshimas theyounger brother 3,4.
; cf.Suet.,Galb.,
;; (3) Suet.,Otho, 1.
(4) Suet., 3, 2.
Vit.,
(5) Cf.Sealey,op,cit. (in n. 1, p. 62), p. 111.
7

98 H. W. BIRD
as a watchdog and permanent threat to the nobiles(г). Thereforea

large number of novihomines were promoted thereafter,since their
loyalties would presumably be not to the established nobilesbut to
the emperor. Subsequent eventsin the reignsof Caligula and Clau-
dius proved that Tiberius had been correct in his suspicions. Cali-
gula seeminglyreversedhis predecessor'spolicy forthe firsttwo years
of his reign. Calvisius Sabinus became legate of Pannonia (2). M.
Aemilius Lepidus marriedDrusilla (8), and he was veryfriendlywith
Annius Vinicianus (4). L. Apronius Caesianus was consul in 39 (6).
The group, however,could only be satisfiedby the destructionof the
Julian-Claudian hegemony. It was itselfdistroyedin the attempt.
Conclusion
It has been contended that "only a major alterationin the balance
of political forces could explain such a sudden and drastic change
of fortune" (i.e. for Sejanus) (e). This study has attempted to show
that a political group antipatheticto Sejanus and restrictedby him
during his period of power may have combined with another group
which had tolerated the ministerbut owed him no real allegiance
and eventuallyconsidered him a threatto its dignitasand ascendancy.
In concert they brought pressure to bear upon Tiberius to depose
Sejanus, and subsequently provided leaders forthe abortive conspi-
racies in 39 and 42, and the successfulcoup in 41. Thus the respon-
sibilityforrenewed attemptsafterTiberius' death to topple theJulio-
Claudians from their position of eminence rests with the group
which succeeded in destroying Sejanus (7).
of Toronto.
University H. W. Bird.
(1) Macroseemingly assailed Trioin35 (Tac.,Ann., VI, 38,2 ; Dio, 58,25,2). He

certainlyattachedMamercus Scaurusin 34 (Tac.,Ann., VI, 29,3) andL. Arruntius,
L. Domitius andVibius Marsus in37( Tac.,Ann.,VI,47,2 ; Dio,58,27,2 ff.).Caligula's
reversalin37and38ofhispredecessor's policymadeitnecessary forhimtodestroy Macro
in 38 (cf.Dio, 59, 10,6).
(2) Dio, 59, 18,4; cf.Tac., Hist.,1, 48, 2.
(3) Dio, 59, И, 1; 22, 6.
(4) Jos.,A.J.,19,1,3 ; 1,8. Vinicianuswasthebrains behind theplotofScribonianus
in 42 (Dio, 60, 15).
(5) Dio, 59, 13,2.
(6) BODDINGTON, op.cit.(in n. 4, p. 85), p. 14.
(7) I shouldliketothank ProfessorG. V. Sumner forhisconstructive
criticismduring
thepreparationofthispaper.Theauthor, however, fortheviews
isresponsible expressed.


1969 Sejanus Significance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1969 Sejanus Significance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Societe d’Etudes Latines de Bruxelles

L. Aelius Seianus and his Political Significance

This content downloaded from 70.119.188.32 on Thu, 8 May 2014 01:34:32 AM

Lucius Aelius Seianus was born at Volsinii in Etruria, the son

This content downloaded from 70.119.188.32 on Thu, 8 May 2014 01:34:32 AM

(1) Cf.V. G. Sumner, TheFamily ofL. Aelius

This content downloaded from 70.119.188.32 on Thu, 8 May 2014 01:34:32 AM

We next hear of Sejanus when he accompanies Drusus (another

(1) Cf.Tac., Ann.,1, 24,2.

This content downloaded from 70.119.188.32 on Thu, 8 May 2014 01:34:32 AM

to chance or merely to the empereor's favour, but to a very real

(1) Cf.Syme,T., p. 405.

This content downloaded from 70.119.188.32 on Thu, 8 May 2014 01:34:32 AM

Two years later, so Tacitus informs us (1), Sej anus helped to

manicus is thesecondary majorfigure ; Sejanusplaysthesamerolein thesecondhalf

This content downloaded from 70.119.188.32 on Thu, 8 May 2014 01:34:32 AM

by permittingor even encouraging him to attack certain members

(1) Arm., IV, I, ff.

This content downloaded from 70.119.188.32 on Thu, 8 May 2014 01:34:32 AM

(1) Tao., Ann.,IV, 39,3.

This content downloaded from 70.119.188.32 on Thu, 8 May 2014 01:34:32 AM

The Results of Drusus' Death

The next consideration is whether Sejanus now conceived the

This content downloaded from 70.119.188.32 on Thu, 8 May 2014 01:34:32 AM

administration, which would ensure the smooth working of the

(1) Furneaux,op.cit.,p. 113ff.

This content downloaded from 70.119.188.32 on Thu, 8 May 2014 01:34:32 AM

herent in herhasty temper and excessive ambition in 19, and on his

(1) Tao., Ann.,II, 72, 1.

This content downloaded from 70.119.188.32 on Thu, 8 May 2014 01:34:32 AM

the cases of C. Silius and his wife,Sosia, in 24 (x), Claudia Pulchra

(1) Tac., Ann.,IV, 18, 1-20,1.

This content downloaded from 70.119.188.32 on Thu, 8 May 2014 01:34:32 AM

affordto dismiss the request lightly. Again an indication of his re-

(1) Tac., Amu,IV, 41, 1.

This content downloaded from 70.119.188.32 on Thu, 8 May 2014 01:34:32 AM

conceivable that he hoped, by his absence fromRome, to encourage

The Power Structure

With Tiberius' departure Sej anus undoubtedly became the most

il) Tac., Ann,,I, 12, 1 ff.; IV, 9, 1.

This content downloaded from 70.119.188.32 on Thu, 8 May 2014 01:34:32 AM

janus. Finally, Gaetulicus' sisterwas the wife of Calvisius Sabinus,

This content downloaded from 70.119.188.32 on Thu, 8 May 2014 01:34:32 AM

The Positionof Sejanus: His Allies.

(1) Tac., Ann.,VI, 27, 2.

This content downloaded from 70.119.188.32 on Thu, 8 May 2014 01:34:32 AM

himselfI1). Many had prospered and expected to continue to do

(1) Syme,T., p. 405.Augustus hadeffectively

This content downloaded from 70.119.188.32 on Thu, 8 May 2014 01:34:32 AM

Tiberius' friends. They perished in 32 (*). Tacitus also mentions

(1) Tac., Arm., VI, 10,2.

This content downloaded from 70.119.188.32 on Thu, 8 May 2014 01:34:32 AM

withinsuch a shortperiodin the twentiesand consequentlyno eligible

(1) A similar reasonmayexplainwhyso manynovibecameconsuls in thelastten

This content downloaded from 70.119.188.32 on Thu, 8 May 2014 01:34:32 AM

the triumvir,and L. Aemilius Paullus, husband of the youngerJu-

(1) Syme, op.cit.,p. 494.

This content downloaded from 70.119.188.32 on Thu, 8 May 2014 01:34:32 AM

tant number of senatorial families, the Scribonii, Pompeii, Furii

(1) C.I.G.,3571attests hisproconsulship ofAsia,butthedates27-30areconjectural.

This content downloaded from 70.119.188.32 on Thu, 8 May 2014 01:34:32 AM

would no doubt desire his deputy at Rome to have support and to

(1) Dio, 58, 9, 2 ff.

This content downloaded from 70.119.188.32 on Thu, 8 May 2014 01:34:32 AM