latrones - Get a Free Blog

BANDITS IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE
70, 1935, 350–5 (Augustus gave the order, entrusting its execution to his loyal
henchman, Sallustius Crispus); A.E. Pappano, ‘Agrippa Postumus’, CPh 36, 1941,
30–45 (Agrippa was, as representative of the Julian court-grouping and a popular
favourite to succeed Augustus, sacrificed to the Claudian court-faction; those who
engineered his death were Livia and Sallustius Crispus); W. Allen Jr., ‘The Death
of Agrippa Postumus’, TAPhA 78, 1947, 131–9 (a speculative theory of doublets:
Agrippa Postumus died a natural death [!]; historians transferred Sallustius Crispus’
destruction of Clemens, the false Agrippa Postumus, to his master); R. Detweiler,
‘Historical Perspectives on the Death of Agrippa Postumus’, CJ 65, 1969/70, 289–
95 (Tiberius was responsible for the death of his rival, Agrippa); B.M. Levick,
‘Abdication and Agrippa Postumus’, Historia 21, 1972, 674–97 (abdicatio linked
with emancipatio), contra: S. Jameson, ‘Augustus and Agrippa Postumus’, Historia
24, 1975, 287–314 (abdicatio without emancipatio). Cf. Kienast, Augustus (n. 11),
114ff.; 122 and n. 223 (further references). M. Baar, Das Bild des Kaisers Tiberius bei
Tacitus, Sueton und Cassius Dio, Stuttgart 1990, 92f.
39 Tac. Ann. 1.6 ponders: . . . neque mortem nepoti pro securitate privigni inlatam credibile
erat. Propius vero Tiberium ac Liviam, illum metu, hanc novercalibus odiis, suspecti et invisi
iuvenis caedem festinavisse. For Dio 57.3.5, Tiberius was the guilty party. Suet. Tib.
22 seeks to lay the blame on Augustus or Livia. Research on this issue (cf. n. 38)
appears to have missed a contradiction in Suetonius’ account: though Tiberius is
supposed to have had nothing to do with the order of execution, the chapter opens
with the information that Tiberius delayed announcing Augustus’ death until
Agrippa had been dealt with. He must, therefore, have at least been aware of the
planned attack.
40 PIR 2 S 61. Tac. Ann. 1.6: . . . Sallustius Crispus particeps secretorum (is ad tribunum
miserat codicillos) etc.; ibid. 3.30: interficiendi Postumi Agrippae conscius. Cf. ibid.
2.40.1: Postremo dat negotium Sallustio Crispo. Jameson, ‘Augustus and Agrippa
Postumus’ (n. 38), 314, holds Sallustius Crispus solely responsible for what happened,
issuing the order for Agrippa’s death without the knowledge or consent of
Augustus, Livia or Tiberius: ‘As to his personal motive, perhaps it arose from
nothing more than a desire to be helpful to the new regime.’
41 Tac. Ann. 1.6: Nihil de ea re Tiberius aput senatum disseruit.
42 Tac. Ann. 5.10; cf. below, p. 145.
43 Tac. Hist. 1.4.2: evulgato imperii arcano posse principem alibi quam Romae fieri. On the
role of the Roman army in the election of emperors in the first century see L.
Schumacher, ‘Herrschaftsübertragung im frühen Prinzipat: die Rolle von Senat,
Volk und Heer bei der Kaisererhebung’, Index 15, 1987, 315–32.
44 Tac. Ann. 2.39.1: discordiis armisque civilibus rem publicam perculisset.
45 Other than in the story of Clemens, the Germanici exercitus is described in Tac. Hist.
1.8.2 as ‘given its strength, very dangerous’ (quod periculosissimum in tantis viribus).
46 Tac. Ann. 1.35ff.; Suet. Tib. 25.2; Dio 57.5.
47 Suet. Aug. 19.
48 Levick, Tiberius (n. 21), 152, supposes powerful men behind Clemens as the instigators
of the conspiracy (cf. also Ann. 2.40.3: multi e domo principis equitesque ac
senatores!) thinking primarily of M. Scribonius Libo Drusus, on his mother’s side a
grandson of Sextus Pompeius, who, after the death of Augustus fell under suspicion
of plotting the overthrow of Tiberius: Tac. Ann. 2.27f. Vell. 2.130.3. Suet. Tib. 25.
Dio 57.15.4. Levick sees a connection in the fact that Libo was accused in the same
year, ad 16, as Clemens was killed.
49 W.W. Buckland, The Roman Law of Slavery, Cambridge 1908, repr. 1970, 15ff.
252ff.
50 Dio 55.32.2.
216