Astrologia et crimen: Four cases with astrological relevance during Tiberius’ rule

MISCELLANEA HISTORIAE ANTIQUITATIS

HUNGARIAN POLIS STUDIES (HPS)

Eötvös Loránd University

Dept. of Ancient History

H–1088 Budapest, Múzeum körút 6–8.

University of Debrecen

Dept. of Ancient History

H–4010 Debrecen, Egyetem tér 1.

Fax: + 36 52 512 900 / 22130

E-mail: [email protected]

Nr. 21

Editor

GYÖRGY NÉMETH

HU ISSN 1417-1708

2014

MISCELLANEA HISTORIAE ANTIQUITATIS

PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST CROATIAN-HUNGARIAN

PHD CONFERENCE ON ANCIENT HISTORY

Edited by

GYÖRGY NÉMETH AND DÁNIEL BAJNOK

BUDAPEST – DEBRECEN

Redactor manager

Ádám Szabó

© Authors

© Editor of HPS

Cover: Pannoniae et Illyrici Veteris Tabula by A. Ortelius (1601)

ISBN 978-963-284-572-2

Printed byKODEX KÖNYVGYÁRTÓ KFT.

Budapest

CONTENTS

Contents 5

Introduction 7

I. Ancient Greek and Roman History

Patriot or traitor? – Aeschines and Demosthenes 11Dániel Bajnok

Emotion und Ergriffenheit: Henotheistische Tendenzenin der griechischen Religion 21

Gyula Lindner

Possibilities of inter-municipal relationsin ancient North Italy 37

Nándor Lehrer

Liberalia bei Ovidius 53Dóra Kovács

Astrologia et crimen: Four cases with astrological relevanceduring Tiberius’ rule 63

Krisztián Márványos

The Jewish temple at Leontopolis:A demotic piece of evidence 79

Zsuzsanna Szántó

II. Illyricum

Hellenistic ware from Salona – unguentaria 89Jelena Jovanović

Individual finds or a coin hoard: Analysis of the Mazin-type materialfrom the Sveta Trojica hill-fort near Starigrad Paklenica 111

Anja Bertol

5

Contents

The Roman water supply system in Liburniafrom the examples at Iader, Aenona and Navalia 143

Hrvoje Manenica

Notes on graves, tombs, and sarcophagi findingson the Brač island 163

Vinka Bubić

Usurpers from Illyricum in the fourth-century breviaria 179Márk Sólyom

III. Pannonia

Physicians and health care in Roman Pannonia 189Ákos Zimonyi

Bonus scarabaeus - an early Christian (?) magical gemfrom Pannonia 209

András Szabó

6

Accepted for publication: 19/11/2014 Miscellanea Historiae AntiquitatisProceedings of the First Croatian-Hungarian

ISBN 978-963-284-572-2 PhD Conference on Ancient HistoryHU ISSN 1417-1708 HPS 21.

pp. 63–78.

ASTROLOGIA ET CRIMEN:FOUR CASES WITH ASTROLOGICAL RELEVANCE

DURING TIBERIUS’ RULE

KRISZTIÁN MÁRVÁNYOS

Abstract: Astrology had a high impact on various spiritual and quasi-religioustrends in the beginning of the Roman Empire. At these times, the well-knownnegative opinion on Tiberius’ rule was induced by the lawsuits on matters oftreason (crimen laesae maiestatis). An atmosphere of fear and distrust wascommon within the executive layer of the society, while the opposition of theemperor was either destroyed or buried in silence. By means of four trial casesconcerning astrology that took place in the period discussed (14–37), I aim toreveal the characteristics of the political fights that lurk beneath these treasontrials (Libo Drusus, Aemilia Lepida, Claudia Pulchra and Mamercus Scaurus).The paper also attempts to give an insight into the political aspects of theseevents and explore parallels that can be drawn, and specific traits that may befound in these different cases. An important part of this investigation will be toquestion the extent of the princeps’ involvement in the trials.

Keywords: adulterium, Aemilia Lepida, astrologer, astrologia, Atreus, auctoritas,Augustus, Cassius Dio, Claudia Pulchra, conceptional lawsuit, coniuratio,conspiracy, crimen, delator, devotio, Domitius Afer, edict, horoscope, laesamaiestas, Libo Drusus, Lucius Seianus, magic, magorum sacra, MamercusScaurus, plot, Pompeius Magnus, Principate, prodigium, Roman Empire,Rubellius Blandus, senator, Suetonius, Sulpicius Quirinus, Sutorius Macro,Tacitus, Thrasyllus, Tiberius, treason, trial, venenum

From the numerous, well-known high treason cases (laesa maiestas)during the rule of the second emperor of the Principate, it is worthcontemplating and analysing those together that include participationin magician ceremonies or collaboration in astrology amongst theircharges.

R. T. Ridley says that the legal proceedings of the Tiberius era can bebasically divided into two major groups:

63


a) approximately two dozen of high treason cases that entailedsome form of criminal acts such as slander, libel;

b) more than eighty betrayal cases that are related to conspiracies.1

On the contrary, my belief is that one cannot draw a sharp line betweenthese groups. The astrological cases investigated in the paper providegood counterexamples for this.

What sort of relation can be established between the litigation casesand the charges of astrology? How are they connected to political eventsand the ruler himself? In order to answer these questions, it is worthtaking a diversion to consider the most typical theoretical and historicalaspects of Roman astrology.

Astrology and Rome

Astrology significantly influenced the different cultural and quasi-religious trends in the Roman Empire in the 1st century AD. According toD. S. Potter, astrology is supposedly originated from Eastern wisdom;actually they could be Greek tenets which had connections with theastrology of Mesopotamia.2 We do not have exact information on when itwas adapted in Rome, but we know that Plautus’ readers must havealready familiarised themselves with a part of astrological doctrines, asis proven by the character Arcturus from his comedy, Rudens.3 Theexpression astrologi (or mathematici or Chaldei)4 was used to refer to thefollowing activities: astrologers, fortune-tellers, prophets or seers.Moreover, the following names can also be encountered in theterminology of contemporary literature regarding the era: (h)aruspiciesand augures; and later less definite expressions also emerge such as:coniectores, (h)arioli, magi, γόητες, προφήται, vates or vaticinatores.5 Thename unavoidably contained certain dishonesty but it did not implicitlymean charlatanry. According to tradition, the Roman scientific figurecan be traced back to Hermes Trismegistos,6 whose books influenced e.g.Firmicus Maternus and Vettius Valens, too. Claudius Ptolemaeus,mathematician and geographer in the 2nd century AD, approachedastrology from a scientific point of view. As we can observe in the case ofTiberius’ close friend Thrasyllus of Mendes, these scientists were

1 Ridley 1988, 404.2 Potter 1994, 17–20.3 Hayes 1959, 3.4 Goodyear 1981, 266.5 MacMullen 1966, 128.6 Adamik 2009, 420.

64

Astrologia et crimen

regarded as educated, cultured men of their era and enjoyed privilegedattention.7

The most important elements of the ancient astrology were asfollows: planets, meteors (their shapes and tails) and eclipses. Theydifferentiated seven planets: the Sun, the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars,Jupiter, and Saturn. Their different and respective positions defined thetwelve zodiacs. Through these, the horoscope of an individual wasdetermined. They drew conclusions about the character of individualsand claimed to predict future life events. While fortunes generallycontained little concrete information, it sometimes happened that theyspecified whether the individual could expect rather good luck ordanger. The notion of καταρχή determined the best time of a political orpersonal activity,8 however, investigating this in depth could alsobecome dangerous, especially in case of negative signs.

In ancient Rome, astrology was initially (approximately since the 2nd

century BC) considered a reprehensible thing; in the political sense itmeant a subversive activity, and later the expression gained differentmeanings in terms of public and private life.9 Expulsion orders toastrologers were issued as early as the period of republic: in 186, 161 and139 BC.10 Alongside these, the first large scale act of collectively expellingastrologers from Rome was organized in 33 BC.11 These measuresdemonstrate it clearly that there was a growing control over religiouspractices and that magic was considered something of foreign quality,imported from the outside. As a reflection of this, it can be easily seenhow the narrow, sometimes blurry borderline between religion andmagic created a dichotomic relation to the categories of legal–illegal andown–foreign.12

“Tu ne quaesieris (scire nefas), quem mihi, quem tibifinem di dederint, Leuconoe, nec Babyloniostemptaris numeros.” (Hor., Carm. 1,11,1–3.)

Horace represents not only an Epicurean viewpoint of dismissal here,but he also warns the naive Leuconoe in his love ode, as themathematicians of the time often exploited the gullible.13 The lovesickstudent of horoscopy, Leuconoe distracts the poet with the question ofeternal love, “who gives an elusive reply and proposes a program of

7 Cramer 1954, 99–101.8 Potter 1994, 17–18.9 Goodyear 1981, 266–268.10 Hayes 1959, 4.11 Várhelyi 2010, 159.12 Hajdu 2013, 390.13 Borzsák 2002, 73–74.

65


much shorter run: take advantage of the day and turn to the future witheven less gullibility”.14

Caius Plinius Secundus preserved several magical practices in hisonly remaining, widely known work, the Naturalis historia, for thesucceeding generations. His survey of trades and crafts is a crucialhistorical source, which proposes that magic developed from medicine.According to his interpretation, magic is a complex, however, “fraud”science that simultaneously combines the characters of medicine,religion and astrology. “Ita possessis hominum sensibus triplici vinculo intantum fastigii adolevit, ut hodieque etiam in magna parte gentiumpraevaleat…” (Plin., Nat. hist. 30,2). Hereinafter, Pliny the Elder construesthat astrology gained a firm hold over other areas within magic.15

By the way, the position of astrologers was once more questioned inthe period of the Roman Empire and it became more and moredangerous over time as it was considered hazardous to inquire about anewly claimed power position. Those who asked astrologers for adviceor information could meet sensitive issues; they could discover and gaina greater insight into hidden questions of reality16, or even directly intopolitics. From Augustus’ period, requests for prediction and signs offuture belonged to the monopoly of the emperor. Moreover, the wordprodigium did not only mean a prediction; in a figurative sense of theword meant a forewarning of a future monstrosity, horror, or threat,however. it still required further interpretations. For this reason, in thesense of the aforementioned dichotomies, astrology became antagonisticand a part of magic as opposed to accepted rites. In consequence,astrology and coniuratio became intertwined in the view of power.17

In relation to this, there are four important cases that need to besurveyed from the investigated period, and they are listed in thefollowing table (Table 1).

Case Year (AD)

Libo Drusus 16

Aemilia Lepida 20

Claudia Pulchra 26

Mamercus Scaurus 34

Table 1. Astrology and crimen maiestatis in the reign of Tiberius

14 Kőrizs 2012, 57.15 Tóth 2013, 839–840.16 Goodyear 1981, 267.17 Hajdu 2013, 393–394.

66


Marcus Scribonius Libo Drusus

We can find the most detailed reading in the Annales (2,27–32) of howLibo Drusus was impeached to the emperor by several prosecutors. Fromthe numerous counts of the charge, Tacitus emphasizes the intention ofpaving Via Appia with money – which can stand questionably as anargument for Libo’s innocence as it demonstrates the simple-mindednonsense of the evidence.18 Still, it is true that Seneca also confirms this,contemptuously highlighting Libo Drusus’ naivety.

“Scribonia, gravis femina, amita Drusi Libonis fuit, adulescentis tam stolidiquam nobilis, maiora sperantis quam illo saeculo quisquam sperare poterataut ipse ullo.” (Sen., Ep. Mor. 8,70,10.)

At the same time, Tacitus mentions one of the most serious charges aswell:

“uni tamen libello manu Libonis nominibus Caesarum aut senatorumadditas atroces vel occultas notas accusator arguebat.” (Tac., Ann. 2,30,2.)

The expression of “atroces vel occultas notas” might be curse forms orscribbles that could be interpreted in a similar way.19 Libo denied that itwas his writing but his slaves recognized it in their testomony undertorture, as it could be expected. Libo Drusus requested the postponing ofthe case (comperendinatio) but Tiberius was unstoppable in the matterand showed no mercy.20 The house of the accused person wassurrounded by the soldiers (cingebatur interim milite domus, Tac., Ann.2,31,1), so the psychical pressure on him culminated. In his hopelesssituation Libo had no way of escape but suicide.21

The cunning Tiberius did not only rid himself of a politicalopponent, but he also managed to force back the astrologers’ activity, aconsiderable threat from the point of view of power. R. A. Bauman triesto divide the counts of indictment against Libo Drusus. He makesdifference between the secret scribbles (“astrologer problem”) writtenbeside the names of the emperors and senators, and the charges of anti-state conspiracy. In his view, the hearing and inquisition of the slavesrather relates to astrology than high treason.22 In the contrary, A.Pettinger argues in his monograph that the criminal procedure againstLibo Drusus was the peak of the reckoning with Tiberius’ opponents. Itwas directed against those that would have considered more suitable

18 Seager 2005, 75.19 Borzsák 1970, 169.20 Goodyear 1981, 278.21 Koestermann 1955, 90–91.22 Bauman 1974, 60–61.

67


alternatives as Augustus’ successor and/or they regarded the system ofrepublic more ideal than unlimited autocracy.23 It is very likely that thiscase was the first real high treason case during Tiberius’ rule.24

In terms of religious life, astrology and sorcery have become moreand more an opposition to the ever-growing control of power in thisperiod.25 After Libo Drusus’ lawsuit, the fathers passed three decrees intotal. The first of these was passed immediately after Libo Drusus’ deathon 13th September: his picture could not be presented during the burialof his descendants;26 the members of the Scribonius family could nottake the name Drusus; thank-offering days were assigned for Jupiter, andthe day of his suicide was declared a holiday. Tiberius vetoed the second,much stricter regulation (already imposing capital punishment) andforgave the Roman offenders; however, a senatus consultum overwrotethis in the same year. The third decree included serious penalties foreven Roman citizens (exile, confiscation of property).27 Based onSuetonius’ report, Tiberius mitigated this law later in this way: “Expulit etmathematicos, sed deprecantibus ac se artem desituros promittentibus veniamdedit.” (Suet., Tib. 36). This information is also supported by Cassius Dio(57,15,8–9).

According to Tacitus (Ann. 2,32,3), on the basis of the orders of year16 AD, two other people were executed (L. Pituanius and P. Marcius) whopractised magic and supposedly got involved in the Libo Drusus caseand/or were in direct relation to the accused. Some of the senatorsmight have attempted to intervene and save their friends and laterTiberius tacitly tolerated this.28 At the same time, official astrologerssuch as Thrasyllus (or later his son, Balbillus, too) undoubtedly remainedexempt from these orders.29 In addition, the success of these legalregulations can be questioned, as a number of further orders were issuedlater against the activities of foretellers and magicians.30 These decreesprove on the one hand the difficulty of solving the problem withastrologers, on the other hand, they also demonstrate that the orders

23 Pettinger 2012, 47–217.24 Shotter 1972, 97.25 Várhelyi 2010, 159.26 These measures, in the age of emperors, were part of what was commonly known as

damnatio memoriae, the beginnings of which go back to the era of republic. Borzsák1970, 171. and Goodyear 1981, 281.

27 Cramer 1954, 237–240.28 Potter 1994, 174–175.29 MacMullen 1966, 140–141.30 Several edicts were made during the 1st century, just like for example the senatus

consultum of 52 AD (during Claudius) and we know about further expelling patents,too (bound to the name of Nero, Vitellius, Vespasianus, Domitianus).

68


had less to do with the expulsion of the astrologers31 and may have hadother purposes.

The case of Aemilia Lepida

The procedure against Aemilia Lepida ran during the end of August orearly September of 20 AD.32 One of the many charges – the kinship withPompeius – is particularly notable and was highlighted in Libo Drusus’case, too. Both of them proved to be the suitable victims due to theirorigin and strong tie to the imperial family.33 This section is in regards toLepida’s case:

“At Romae Lepida, cui super Aemiliorum decus L. Sulla et Cn. Pompeiusproavi erant, defertur simulavisse partum ex P. Quirinio divite atque orbo;adiciebantur adulteria venena quaesitumque per Chaldaeos in domumCaesaris, …” (Tac., Ann. 3,22,1.)

Further similarities can be discovered when comparing it to thedescription of the case four years earlier. The behaviour of the princepsand his purposes in connection with the conduct of the case proved tobe contradictory; his intentions could be learnt only with difficulties ashe behaved with a double meaning. Tacitus wrote about him (Ann.3,22,2):

“Haud facile quis dispexerit illa in cognitione mentem principis: adeo vertitac miscuit irae et clementiae signa.”

During drawing a negative portrait of the ageing emperor, Suetonius(Tib. 49,1) connected the sentencing of an influential woman in herthirties34 with Tiberius’ greediness35:

“condemnatam et generosissimam feminam Lepidam in gratiam Quiriniconsularis praedivitis et orbi, qui dimissam eam e matrimonio postvicensimum annum veneni olim in se comparati arguebat.”

The princeps was careful in avoiding an appearance of self-indulgenceand tyranny and the immediate, evident confirmation of the accusationof maiestas.36 In addition, Tiberius also exempted his son (Nero Claudius

31 Várhelyi 2010, 159.32 Rogers 1935, 51–52.33 Three important sources of the genealogical and prosopographical data: Weinrib

1968, 247–278., Syme 1989, 255–269. and Pettinger 2012, 219–232. The detailed familytree is published by Syme 1989 (table IV).

34 The professional literature supposes the birth of Aemilia Lepida between 15 and 10BC. Cramer 1954, 255–256.

35 Borzsák 1970, 260.36 Shotter 1966, 314–315.

69


Drusus), just being a consul designatus37, from the responsibility ofexpressing his opinion, who was pleased to accept the exemption andescape the revulsion accompanied by judgement.38 During the trial,Lepida, exactly as Libo Drusus did, turned to her ancestors in herprayers. Tacitus mentions Pompeius Magnus here as well. Following thetorture of her slaves, an accuser, namely Rubellius Blandus39, proposedthe traditional form of exile (“ei aqua et igni interdicebatur”)40 as apunishment. Lepida was found guilty and she was exiled. Initially, thedelatores did not seize her fortune, however conceived of a theory, inwhich she was preparing to poison him (“veneno eum a Lepida petitum”Tac., Ann. 3,23,2). Tacitus’ account was rather hazy, however, in my view,amongst the several analogies with the Libo Drusus case, this is themoment that confirms the conceptual nature of the procedure the best.

Quirinus, Lepida’s former husband’s role in the events is alsonotable. The purpose of the marriage between the consul of year 12 ADand Aemilia Lepida was merely to obtain the influence and reputation ofthe woman and this is evidenced by the significant age disparitybetween the two.41 Quirinus – as one of Tiberius’ favourites – gaveevidence about his involving Aemilia Lepida into trouble (Tac., Ann.3,48,2), and the falsity of her guilt42, which also confirms that the chargeswere fabricated and the legal action constructed.

F. H. Cramer reaches to a daring conclusion against the imperialhouse through the questions that were asked from the astrologers.According to him, they must have referred to the reigning family muchmore directly and they could concern the divorced Lepida who marriedinto the imperial house.43 An even more serious conspiracy could also bein the background, thus the charges could be also of political character,however, as in case of Libo Drusus, the explicit probability of this is onceagain questionable.44 According to Bauman however, the fact of thepoisoning had to be in the centre of the charge.45 At the same time, theword venenum has two different meanings in Latin: it can mean either“poison” or “magic device”, meaning a harmful instrument of magic.46

37 Kienast 2011, 82.38 Borzsák 1970, 259.39 Blandus, the consul suffectus in 18 AD and the grandson-in-law of Tiberius had a very

significant influence in the imperial court. Woodman–Martin 1996, 221.40 Borzsák 1970, 260.41 Cramer 1954, 256.42 Woodman–Martin 1996, 220.43 Cramer 1954, 256.44 Rogers 1935, 52–53.45 Bauman 1974, 174.46 Ferenczi 2013, 432.

70


The connection between the poisoning and occult procedures seems tobe apparent in that concrete case. Servorum quaestio exposed theastrological accusations, so these counts of indictment were introducedtogether with the poisoning in reflection of the lex Cornelia de sicariis etveneficiis.47

The doom of Claudia Pulchra

Domitius Afer’s48 accusations against Claudia Pulchra were as follows in26 AD: crimen impudicitiae, adulterium49 and the planning of poisoning andimprecation of the princeps. The concepts of veneficium and devotio asthe part of laesa maiestas are therefore included in the list of crimes inthis case, too. By the way, the accused was the second cousin (sobrina) ofAgrippina the Elder (granddaughter of Augustus)50 and the widow of thelate general Quintilius Varus.51 Agrippina who wanted to protect heraccused relative52, found the emperor during his sacrificing for Augustus.She made her spiteful remarks afterwards which probably formedexcellent basis for her accusers (Tac., Ann. 4,52,2): “quo initio invidiae noneiusdem ait mactare divo Augusto victimas et posteros eius insectari.”

Claudia was accused of marital infidelity with Furnius and of apossible conspiracy; however, it does not turn out from Tacitus’ shortaccount how important the role of perduellio became during the charge.At the same time, Agrippina could rightly feel that the procedure wasthe disguise of an attack against her and a sharp stroke for her becauseher very close female relative was used for this.53 Claudia Pulchra’sparents were Messala Appianus (consul of 12 AD) and the youngerdaughter of C. Claudius Marcellus, called Marcella. Her father was theson of Appius Claudius Pulcher, she inherited the cognomen from here.54

47 Bauman 1974, 175.48 Cn. Domitius Afer, delator of the legal action and praetor in 25 (Syme 1958, 589).

Following Tacitus, we can assume the death of the speaker who was famous for hisexcellent law court speeches in 59, during the rule of Nero (Tac., Ann. 14,19). His hateagainst Agrippina and her family was deeply rooted. Thirteen years later theyoungest son of Agrippina, Caius, sued him as a powerful consul with the charge ofmaiestas (Cassius Dio, 59,19,1–7).

49 This is reasonably disputed by Syme, thus after him it is important to make adifference between ‘adulterium’ and ‘impudicitia’ because Pulchra has already beena widow in the year of the legal action. Syme 1989, 327.

50 Syme 1989, 147.51 Martin–Woodman 2006, 216.52 To the origin of Claudia Pulchra and her relatives and the detailed family tree, see

Syme 1989 (tables III, VI, and VII).53 Rogers 1935, 92–93.54 Syme 1989, 149.

71


Maybe, it is an exaggeration to declare that it was about a clear andreal conspiracy; on the basis of the narrative of Tacitus we could ratherdetect the circumstances of a successful character assassination and aclassical conceptional lawsuit in this case as well. The quickly conductedprocedure and the sentence of death confirm this, too (Tac., Ann. 4,52,3–4). In fact, it is questionable whether she was sentenced because ofmaiestas or something else, however, Pulchra could also have got intotouch with astrology, she may have asked astrologers for advice (evenagainst Tiberius), nevertheless, it cannot be proved explicitly on thebasis of the sources at hand. Lucius Seianus, by this time alreadypraefectus praetorio, also played a significant role in the case because theattacks against Agrippina and her circle have remarkably escalated bythat time.55 The series of these cases started with the criminal procedureagainst her cousin and girlfriend, Claudia Pulchra, at the same time.56 Itwas further well-known that a procedure was conducted against hersons (Drusus, Nero), too, Agrippina was banished to the island ofPandateria, she died in 33 under suspicious circumstances: she starvedto death. Tiberius also played an important role in it, as we could learn itfrom Cassius Dio (58,22,5) and Tacitus (Ann. 6,25,1–3).57 As a result ofrecognizing her dangerous situation, Claudia Pulchra put up a mourningdress that is a common feature with the previous cases58: “se imaginemveram, caelesti sanguine ortam, intellegere discrimen, suscipere sordis” (Tac.,Ann. 4,52,2). Claudia Pulchra’s sentence has shown oratorical abilities(“divulgato ingenio”) of Afer who could obtain even more recognition andreputation in the eye of his contemporaries, most importantly, inTiberius’ eyes. After this case, Afer was considered the first speaker,according to Tacitus he became one of the most powerful figures of thecourt-rooms through the Claudia Pulchra case.59

Mamercus Aemilius Scaurus

The fourth case that also concerned astrology and ended up with thesuicide of the accused, Mamercus Aemilius Scaurus, can be dated 34 AD.60

Seianus, the feared bodyguard commander of Tiberius, was on the peakof his power in 31 AD when it came to his fall. The accusation was theconspiracy against the power of Tiberius; its factuality is questionable of

55 Walker 1952, 40.; Shotter 2005, 43; Martin–Woodman 2006, 215.56 Syme 1989, 347.57 Woodman 2006, 186–187.58 Martin–Woodman 2006, 217.59 Rutledge 2001, 221.60 Fögen 1993, 97.

72


course. Afterwards, the high treason cases were taking victims from thefollowers of Seianus (Suet., Tib. 61,3). One cannot exclude it totally eitherthat a group of the senators organized the overturn of the praefectuspraetorio, fearing from his possible power as a regent in the future.61 Thenew praefectus praetorio Naevius Sutorius Macro played an active rolein it and became a dominant figure of the Roman politics until 38 AD.According to Tacitus, Mamercus Scaurus became the victim ofdestroying hatred of the new bodyguard commander because Macrocaused his fall:

“qui easdem artes occultius exercebat detuleratque argumentum tragoediaea Scauro scriptae, additis versibus qui in Tiberium flecterentur: verum abServilio et Cornelio accusatoribus adulterium Liviae, magorum sacraobiectabantur. Scaurus, ut dignum veteribus Aemiliis, damnationem antiit,hortante Sextia uxore, quae incitamentum mortis et particeps fuit.” (Tac.,Ann. 6,29,3–4).

Tiberius has already questioned Scaurus’ loyalty (Tac., Ann. 1,13,4) whenhe came to power but the good relationship with Seianus probablyremedied this problem. However, he has already divorced from his firstwife, Aemilia Lepida, her tragic fate also affected him very seriouslywhen her legal action came forward in 20 AD. Moreover, as we can read itin Tacitus as well, he supported her to some extent, hindering theconfiscation of her property for a while (Tac., Ann. 3,23,2).62 MamercusScaurus showered the anger of Tiberius upon himself with his tragedyagainst the dictator with the title Atreus.63 Dio says that Scaurus draftedthoughts similar to those of Euripides in his work (“τὰς τῶν κρατούντωνἀμαθίας φέρειν χρεών.” Eur., Phoen. 393). Tiberius meant this for himself,as he himself was Atreus, then he forced the author of the drama tocommit suicide (Cass. Dio, 58,24,4–5). He made Scaurus for Ajax, meaningthat he refused Agamemnon's friendship because of his godlessness. Onthe basis of Tacitus’ narrative, which may be somehat more credible,Macro proposed the emperor to read the drama and he committed therest to his imagination.64 Out of the accusation of “literature”, he wasalso blamed for marital infidelity with Livia Iulia and the participation inmagical ceremonies (“magorum sacra”). Tiberius did not seem to be strictin adulterium cases and according to Tacitus it was not the relationshipwith Seianus in the past that may have caused the loss of Scaurus.65

Rather the part regarding Macro may have played a role behind the

61 Sealey 1961, 97–98.62 Cramer 1954, 257.63 Borzsák 1970, 52.64 Seager 2005, 198.65 Levick 2005, 171.

73


scenes, but Tacitus is not explicit: “he exercised the same skill moresecretly.” All of this could also simply be the consultation with theastrologers,66 even the expression of the opposition to Macro and theirconflicting interests, too. The grandfather of the wife of the bodyguardcommander was the court-astrologer, Thrasyllus, who could callattention of Macro to the dangerous trials of Scaurus and his criticalconsultations with astrologers that affected the future (and the future ofthe ruler). To eliminate this, the use of the written work that wasmentioned to him and the edict (Cass. Dio, 56,25,5–6)67 from Augustus’period (11 AD) that sanctioned the non-observance of the forbiddenquestions came just at the right moment for the accusation of maiestas.68

Scaurus’ wife, Sextia (from the African Sextius family) shortly followedher husband in suicide.69 Coming back to the role of Tiberius, it isimportant to remark that Tacitus may have also reflected the tyrannicalruler image of his own age (during Domitianus’ rule) when he describedthe events.70 In the part after the chapter dealing with the legal action ofScaurus, we can also learn that the other two accusers (Servilius andCornelius) did not make a big profit either: they were exiled to islandsbecause they received bribes in order to withdraw a charge.71

The trial of Scaurus was a typically constructed case, the proof ofthe charges against him is also unclear. Tacitus demonstrates the typicalcase of a slander through the role of Macro. At the same time, thepraefectus praetorio made efforts to establish the criminal procedure forthe verbal breach of trust, too, but according to Tacitus the emperorlimited his bodyguard commander with the renuntiatio amicitiae who wasmore cunning than his predecessor, Seinaus.72

Four paradigmatic samples

It was not by chance that Tiberius needed these legal actions first of allwith political purposes and based on made-up charges. At the beginning,these were integral parts of the activity of the emperor who was rulingas the first successor of Augustus and taking efforts to strengthen hispower. The power and ruling system was mostly based on Augustus'personality that could not be inherited by Tiberius, of course, thus he

66 Rogers 1935, 152.67 It forbade people to consult seers and foretellers.68 Cramer 1954, 259.69 Levick 2005, 170.70 Walker 1952, 220.71 Seager 2005, 198–199.72 Bauman 1974, 126–134.

74


could not be the same emperor. Moreover, in accordance with all legaland other regulations, the ruler's auctoritas stood in the first place; theauctoritas, which was well founded by Augustus, who built it on his ownsuperiority.73 Arising from this, one can understand if after 14 AD thenew princeps had to overcome the existing legitimation crisis at first.The reason for this legitimation deficit was that the pillars of theestablishment were merely informal and therefore had to bestrengthened.74 With these political ideas in mind, one can see why anintention to question or simply enquire about the future of thesovereign was unacceptable. At a certain level, astrology was a matter ofridicule, but as shown in the example of Thrasyllus or even the firstperson of the empire, it was applied and consequently, its role should beexamined with distinction. The legal procedures that heard hightreasons and were qualified by Tacitus as “severe destruction” wereexcellent tools to hold back people dealing with this activity, in case ofwhich astrology also came up as a negative attribute. If a futureconspirator was uncertain concerning the success of his activity, anastrologer could give him an impulse to execute his plan. The charge ofparticipating in magic ceremonies cannot be sharply separated from thenotion of crimen maiestatis because they were an integral part of the armscollection of the high treason legal actions. The crime of maritalinfidelity could also join this on different levels, and in one case(Mamercus Scaurus) the charge of literature was applied. The princepscould use them with success during procedures against possibleopposition behaviour of many respected and ancient families and duringthe conviction as well.75

The atmosphere of fear and distrust was ever growing in parallelwith obscurity and terror, and became almost unanimous amongsenators, and the opposition of the emperor was either destroyed orwrapped in silence. The accusers (delatores) had interest in searching forculprits and framing them for crimes as they were rewarded with a partor all of the property belonging to the convict. Of course, for theiractivity, an appropriate political climate “was necessary”. I believe thepreparation and arrangement of the lawsuits bear the attributes of aclassical show trial in three aspects. First of all, the threatening of theorder of senators, which was always achieved by selecting theappropriate person – e.g. Scribonius Libo Drusus’ great-grandfather onhis mother’s side was the triumvir Pompeius Magnus. Libo was perhaps a

73 Syme 2002, 322.74 Hegyi W. 2011, 482.75 Liebeschuetz 1979, 134–136.

75


suitable victim also owing to his pride in his ancestry76, by that way hewas related to the emperor’s family as well. The second aspect is the useof provocateurs, who selected with special care, and the co-operationbetween accusers in compiling their evidence. Lastly, the fact that builtup for example Drusus’ or Lepida’s confidence, then their fast and finaldefeat.

Paradigmatic samples of the victims of high treason procedures andslanders with tragic fates in the period of the Roman emperor, withinthe Tiberius’ era: Libo Drusus, Aemilia Lepida, Claudia Pulchra andMamercus Scaurus. The development of the show trial means animportant aspect of the history of the age and the afflictions of theastrologers, too. Mainly by Tacitus, these cases have political characterand they clearly demonstrate the different political motives of thecharges in connection with magic, too,77 and in addition they enabledthe elite to succeed, make profit and settle an account with each other,too. The detailed examination of the mentioned four cases – mainlythrough the narrative of Tacitus − takes us closer to the chisel of theastrologers, criminal actions, and the portrait of Tiberius as a ruler andalso to his position but most importantly to understand the wholeperiod as well.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adamik 2009 = Adamik, T.: Római irodalom. A kezdetektől a NyugatrómaiBirodalom bukásáig. Pozsony.

Bauman 1974 = Bauman, R. A.: Impietas in Principem. A study of treasonagainst the Roman emperor with special reference to the first century A.D. München.

Borzsák 1970 = Borzsák, I.: Tacitus. Annales I–III. (Auctores Latini XIII).Budapest.

Borzsák 2002 = Borzsák, I.: Horatius. Ódák és epódoszok. (Auctores LatiniXVIII). Budapest.

Cramer 1954 = Cramer, F. H.: Astrology in Roman Law and Politics.Philadelphia.

76 Syme 1989, 256.77 Várhelyi 2010, 159.

76


Ferenczi 2013 = Ferenczi, A.: Germanicus halála. Tacitus: Annales II. 69–71, 74. In: Nagy, Á. M. (ed.): Az Olympos mellett. Mágikushagyományok az ókori Mediterraneumban. Budapest, 429–432.

Fögen 1993 = Fögen, M. T.: Die Enteignung der Wahrsager. Studien zumkaiserlichen Wissensmonopol in der Spätantike. Frankfurt am Main.

Goodyear 1981 = Goodyear, F. R. D. (ed.): The Annals of Tacitus. Books 1–6.Cambridge.

Hajdu 2013 = Hajdu, P.: A mágia tilalma Rómában. In: Nagy, Á. M. (ed.): AzOlympos mellett. Mágikus hagyományok az ókori Mediterraneumban.Budapest, 389–394.

Hayes 1959 = Hayes, W. M.: Tiberius and the Future. The Classical Journal55, 3–8.

Hegyi W. 2011 = Hegyi W., Gy.: Római történelem. In: Németh, Gy. – HegyiW., Gy.: Görög–római történelem. Budapest, 323–565.

Kienast 2011 = Kienast, D.: Römische Kaisertabelle. Grundzüge einerrömischen Kaiserchronologie. Darmstadt.

Koestermann 1955 = Koestermann, E.: Die Majestätsprozesse unterTiberius. Historia 4, 72–106.

Kőrizs 2012 = Kőrizs, I.: “Olykor bölcs a bolondozás”. Horatiusmelankóliája. 2000 9, 56–65.

Levick 2005 = Levick, B.: Tiberius the Politician. London, New York.

Liebeschuetz 1979 = Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G.: Continuity and change inRoman religion. Oxford.

MacMullen 1966 = MacMullen, R.: Enemies of the Roman Order. Treason,Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire. Cambridge (Massachusetts).

Martin–Woodman 2006 = Martin, R. H. – Woodman, A. J. (ed.): Tacitus:Annals. Book IV. (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics). Cambridge.

Pettinger 2012 = Pettinger, A.: The Republic in Danger. Drusus Libo and theSuccession of Tiberius. Oxford.

Potter 1994 = Potter, D. S.: Prophets and Emperors. Human Divine Authorityfrom Augustus to Theodosius. Cambridge (Massachusetts).

Ridley 1988 = Ridley, R. T.: History of Rome: a documented analysis. Rome.

Rogers 1935 = Rogers, R. S.: Criminal Trials and Criminal Legislation underTiberius. Middletown.

77


Rutledge 2001 = Rutledge, S. H.: Imperial Inquisitions. Prosecutors andInformants from Tiberius to Domitian. London, New York.

Seager 2005 = Seager, R.: Tiberius. Oxford.

Sealey 1961 = Sealey, R.: The Political Attachments of L. Aelius Seianus.Phoenix 15/2, 97–114.

Shotter 1966 = Shotter, D. C. A.: Tiberius' Part in the Trial of AemiliaLepida. Historia 15/3, 312–317

Shotter 1972 = Shotter, D. C. A.: The Trial of M. Scribonius Libo Drusus.Historia 21, 88–98.

Shotter 2005 = Shotter, D. C. A.: Tiberius Caesar. London, New York.

Syme 1958 = Syme, R.: Tacitus. Oxford.

Syme 1989 = Syme, R.: The Augustan Aristocracy. Oxford.

Syme 2002 = Syme, R.: The Roman Revolution. Oxford.

Tóth 2013 = Tóth, O.: Idősebb Plinius és a mágia. In: Nagy, Á. M. (ed.): AzOlympos mellett. Mágikus hagyományok az ókori Mediterraneumban.Budapest, 838–864.

Várhelyi 2010 = Várhelyi, Zs.: The Religion of Senators in the Roman Empire.Power and the Beyond. Cambridge.

Walker 1952 = Walker, B.: The Annals of Tacitus. A Study in the Writing ofHistory. Manchester.

Weinrieb 1968 = Weinrib, E. J.: The Family Connections of M. LiviusDrusus Libo. HSPh 72, 247–278.

Woodman 2006 = Woodman, A. J.: Tiberius and the Taste of Power: TheYear 33 in Tacitus. CQ 56, 1, 175–189.

Woodman–Martin 1996 = Woodman, A. J. – Martin, R. H. (ed.): The Annalsof Tacitus. Books 3. Cambridge.

78

Astrologia et crimen: Four cases with astrological relevance during Tiberius’ rule

Documents

Transcript of Astrologia et crimen: Four cases with astrological relevance during Tiberius’ rule