latrones - Get a Free Blog

NOTES
17 On the rules of historiography and their effect on the recording of incidents of
‘banditry’ see above, pp. 5–6.
18 Tac. Hist. 2.72.1f. Bellen, Sklavenflucht 97f.
19 On Scribonianus Camerinus cf. PIR S 205; G.E.F. Chilver, A Historical Commentary
on Tacitus’ Histories. I and II, Oxford 1979, 232 (on Tac. Hist. 2.72.2): probably a
son of M. Crassus Frugi, cos. 64.
20 Tac. Hist. 2.72.2.
21 Tac. Ann. 2.39–40. E. Groag, s.v. Clemens no. 1, RE IV, 1901, 10. J. Mogenet, ‘La
conjuration de Clemens’, AC 23, 1954, 321–30. B. Levick, Tiberius the Politician,
London 1976, 66; 112; 150–2.
22 Suet. Tib. 25.2: Nam et servus Agrippae Clemens nomine non contemnendam manum in
ultionem domini compararat.
23 Dio 57.16.3–4. Millar, Study (n. 16), 218.
24 Cf. Tac. Ann. 1.3.4:
Nam senem Augustum devinxerat adeo, uti nepotem unicum, Agrippam Postumum,
in insulam Planasiam proiecerit, rudem sane bonarum artium et robore corporis
stolide ferocem, nullius tamen flagitii conpertum.
25 Tac. Ann. 2.39.1: ad exercitus Germanos.
26 On Planasia see Strab. 2.5.19 p. 123; 4.1.10 p. 185. G. Radke, s.v. Planasia, KlP
IV, 1979, 881f.
27 Levick, Tiberius (n. 21), 151.
28 Tac. Ann. 2.39.3: . . . mox vago rumore apud inperitissimi cuiusque promptas aures aut
rursum apud turbidos eoque nova cupientes. Given the way that Tacitus expresses himself,
inperitissimi, turbidi and nova cupientes amount to a classic recipe for revolution;
on his choice of words and their force see above, p. 126.
29 Tac. Ann. 2.40.3: quo modo tu Caesar. On this see above, pp. 118–19.
30 Dio 57.16.3.
31 Dio 55.16.4.
32 On Tacitus’ unfavourable depiction of Tiberius see G.A. Harrer, ‘Tacitus and
Tiberius’, AJPh 41, 1920, 57–68. U. Knoche, ‘Zur Beurteilung des Kaisers Tiberius
durch Tacitus’, Gymnasium 70, 1963, 211–26. C. Grassi, ‘Ambiguità di Tacito
nella valutazione di Tiberio’, Athenaeum 67, 1979, 27–47. Schrömbges, Tiberius
(n. 11), 131–9. J. Christes, ‘Tacitus und die moderatio des Tiberius’, Gymnasium
101, 1994, 112–34.
33 Knoche, ‘Beurteilung’ (n. 32), 224.
34 Tac. Ann. 2.40.1: modo nihil spernendum, modo non omnia metuenda ambiguus pudoris ac
metus reputabat. (Trans. Moore and Jackson, Loeb)
35 Tac. Ann. 1.6: Primum facinus novi principatus fuit Postumi Agrippae caedes, quem
ignarum inermumque quamvis firmatus animo centurio aegre confecit. Regarding the phrase
primum facinus novi principatus cf. the parallel novi principatus . . . primum specimen
(Hist. 2.64.1), used by Tacitus to describe the killing of Cornelius Dolabella,
carried out metu et odio at Vitellius’ command.
36 On him see V. Gardthausen, s.v. Iulius no. 128, RE X, 1918, 183ff.
37 Tac. Ann. 1.6: . . . Agrippae caedes, quem ignarum inermumque quamvis firmatus animo
centurio aegre confecit.
38 A massive bibliography has built up on issues concerning Agrippa Postumus, in
particular the reasons for his banishment (genuine mental instability, or a condition
put forward by his enemies [Vell. 2.112. Suet. Aug. 65. Tac. Ann. 1.3f. Dio 55.32],
a personal quarrel with Augustus), its conditions and consequences (abdicatio?,
emancipatio?, relegatio?, exheredatio?), and the instigator of his death: M.P. Charlesworth,
‘Tiberius and the Death of Augustus’, AJPh 44, 1923, 279ff. (Augustus as
the man who gave the order); E. Hohl, ‘Primum facinus novi principatus’, Hermes
215