8/3/2019 Banishment of the Elder Agrippina

1/3

The Banishment of the Elder AgrippinaAuthor(s): Martin P. CharlesworthSource: Classical Philology, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Jul., 1922), pp. 260-261Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/263601 .

Accessed: 07/08/2011 00:13

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.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Classical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/263601?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/263601?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

8/3/2019 Banishment of the Elder Agrippina

2/3

NOTES AND DISCUSSIONSTHE BANISHMENT OF THE ELDER AGRIPPINA

The account of the punishment of the elder Agrippina by Tiberius,and the circumstances under which it took place, have always appearedsomewhat confused to students of the history of that period. It is thepurpose of this note to draw attention to an error in chronology which hasnot been sufficiently remarked before. According to the account in Annalsv. 3, the death of Livia in 29 A.D. removed all reluctance from Tiberius'mind, and he immediately put into action his schemes against Agrippinaand her sons: the Senate at first refused to decree any punishment upon theemperor's vague charges, but on the receipt of a second and more urgentletter left the decision to him (v. 5). Here occurs a lacuna in the text, butfrom Suetonius it is inferred that Nero was declared a public enemy by theSenate (Tib. 54, 2, Cal. 7), and that both he and his mother were banished,the one to Pontia, the other to Pandataria, where they were treated withgreat severity (Tib. 53, 54). The general impression left is that they wereboth sent into banishment on unproved charges in the year 29 A.D.There are however one or two indications that this account is not correct,or at any rate not sufficiently complete, and that there has been somesuppression of detail and a confusion of chronology. Thus the elder Plinycasually lets us know that Titius Sabinus and his slaves were punished inconnection with Nero, son of Germanicus; the phrase used, "ex causa,"is a little ambiguous, but it might mean "in connection with the trial of Nero "(N.H. viii. 145). Tacitus merely relates that he was entrapped into makingimprudent remarks against Tiberius, and then being charged with bribingcertain of the emperor's freedmen and plotting against the person of theemperor himself, was put to death; no mention is made of Nero or of Sabi-nus' slaves. Again Philo (Contra Flac. ed. Wendland, p. 617) declares thatAvillius Flaccus was one of the informers against Agrippina. In Suetonius(Tib. 53, 2) we read that Agrippina was charged with wishing to flee forrefuge to the armies-presumably those on the German frontier. All thisdoes not amount to much owiIng o the incidental way in which the evidenceis given, but this aspect of the case is altered if we turn to Suetonius, Caligula,10, where the historian is tracing the early life of the Emperor Gaius. Therewe read that he accompanied his father to Syria, then returned with hismother and lived with her until her banishment, after which he took up hisresidence in the house of his great-grandmother Livia, over whom he pro-nounced a laudation at her funeral: "unde reversus primum in matris,

260

8/3/2019 Banishment of the Elder Agrippina

3/3

NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS 261deindeea relegatan LiviaeAugustaeproaviae uaecontubernio ansit,quamdefunctam. ... pro rostris laudavit." We are here explicitly told thatAgrippinasuffered banishmentbefore the death of Livia; this of course stotally at variancewith the accountof Tacitus,who tries to make out thatit was only after Livia's death that Tiberius would proceedagainst hisdaughter-in-law. The data given by Suetoniusand the elder Pliny suggestthat the banishmentof Agrippinawas earlierthan we shouldimaginefromTacitus' narrative, nd this suggestion eceivesa certainamountof confirma-tion fromthe fact that Velleius(ii. 130.4 and 5) apparentlydates the dis-grace of Agrippinaand Nero before the death of Livia: "quod ex nuru,quod ex nepote dolere, indignari, erubescerecoactus est! cuius temporisaegritudinemauxit amissa mater .. . " Seneca (Dialogus v. 21. 5)speaksof a villa at Herculaneumwhichwas torn down by Gaius, "becausehis mother was once kept under guard there." Weiss in his article onGaiusin Pauly-Wissowa ppears o think that the custody at Herculaneumand the "relegatio" of Caligula, 10, are the same, and that after Livia'sdeath a trial and banishment ook place. Sucha view does not seemat allacceptable. In both places (Tib. 54, Cal. 10) Suetonius uses the word"relegata" and knows of no second banishment. Yet even should Weiss'sviewbe true, the fact still remains hat Tacitus says nothingabout this earlier"relegatio,"but believes the measureswere taken against Agrippina nd hersoii only after Livia's death. In fact he appears o be followinga differenttraditionwhichrepresents he familyof Germanicus s victims of Tiberius'suspicion. Fromthe notices alreadymentionedwe might infer that chargesof conspiracywere not altogether unfoundedand that Agrippinaand Neroweregiven someform of trial, and that at a date priorto the death of Livia.Ourpurpose,however,was not to discuss he historicityof Tacitus'narrative,but rather to call attention to this difference n chronology.' Suetonius'statement n Caligula,10, is directand preciseand does not admitof question.It looks as though once again Tacitus' obvious liking for the family ofGermanicushas caused him to orait or gloze over facts which would be toits detriment.

MARTIN P. CHARLESWORTHPRINCETON I'NIVERSITY

PLATO EUTHYDEMUS 304 EKaL 7rCpL OVO.VO8cv&wLyv &vaav u7rov&qv WOLOV wV (OVTw yap 7rW KaL

at7rV TOLS OVOFEt-L)"On things of no account an unaccountable zeal bestowing. For it waswith some such flourish that he delivered himself." Though I presume thatmost Platonists must be aware that this is the meaning of the passage ithas been so often mistranslated or misinterpreted for argumentative purposes1 For a similar differenice in chroniology, cf. Ann. vi. 28 anid Pliny N.H. x. 2. 5.