Was Sobriety The Secret Power Behind The Most Talented Members Of The Julio-Claudian Dynasty?

The two most lauded members of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty have to be Julius Caesar (c. 100-44 BCE), the conqueror who brought his family to power, and Augustus (c. 63 BCE-14 CE), the cunning political genius who completed Caesar’s war effort and carved out a place for an emperor in the monarch-hating culture of the Romans. After Caesar and Augustus, the Julio-Claudian Dynasty continued to rule Rome until the year 68, when the assassination of Nero ended the dynasty.

The Roman biographer, Suetonius (c. 70-130+), wrote about the six members of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty in his work, The Twelve Caesars. Whereas most other ancient historians wrote about the wars and political maneuvers of the emperors, Suetonius filled most of his pages with personality evaluations, physical descriptions, and especially the behavior of his subjects in social settings. In particular, one of the topics Suetonius frequently chose to comment on was the eating and drinking habits of the people featured in his text. In scanning Suetonius’ commentary on the liquid intake of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, an interesting trait seemed to have separated Julius Caesar and Augustus from their more lackluster successors—sobriety.

As stated by the historian Tacitus (c. 56-117+), extravagant feasting had “reached fantastic heights during the century between Actium and the disturbances which brought Galba to the throne,” denoting the years between 31 BCE and 68 CE (The Annals of Imperial Rome, Book III). This extravagance in food and drink was much more prominent in the latter emperors of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. The final four emperors of the dynasty were all described by Suetonius as having been heavy drinkers. Nero (r. 54-68), whose assassination ended Julio-Claudian power, was described as an extravagant drinker, especially of wine (The Twelve Caesars, Nero, 51). Of Nero’s predecessor, Emperor Claudius (r. 41-54), Suetonius reported that ample stories existed about his “drunkenness and love of gambling,” spanning before and after he became the ruler of Rome (The Twelve Caesars, Divus Claudius, 5 and 33). Claudius was preceded by Caligula (r. 37-41), whose wild and luxurious appetites were of legendary proportions. Even the reclusive Emperor Tiberius (r. 14-37) was reportedly an incredibly heavy drinker. Of Tiberius, Suetonius wrote, “Even as a young officer, he was such a hard drinker that his name, Tiberius Claudius Nero, was displaced by the nickname ‘Biberius Caldius Mero,’” which was a drink-inspired play on words that possibly indicated that he liked to drink unmixed hot wine (The Twelve Caesars, Tiberius, 42).

The habits of Augustus and Julius Caesar, however, were very different than their successors. On Augustus, Suetonius wrote, “Augustus was also a habitually abstemious drinker…In later life his limit was a pint; if he ever exceeded this he would deliberately vomit” (The Twelve Caesars, Divus Augustus, 77).  As for the founder of the dynasty, Julius Caesar himself, Suetonius similarly described the dictator’s attitude toward food and drink as extremely reserved. The Twelve Caesar’s even contained a quote supposedly attributed to Caesar’s enemy, Cato the Younger, which read, “Caesar was the only sober man who ever tried to overturn the republic” (Divus Julius, 53).

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Picture Attribution: (Roman feast painted by Roberto Bompiani  (1821–1908), [Public Domain] via Creative Commons).

Sources:

• The Twelve Caesars by Suetonius, translated by Robert Graves and edited by James B. Rives. New York: Penguin Classics, 2007. 
• The Annals of Imperial Rome by Tacitus, translated by Michael Grant. New York: Penguin Classics, 1996.  

The Allegedly Fatal Study Sessions Of Seleucus, A Scholar From The Reign Of Tiberius

According to the Roman biographer, Suetonius (c. 70-130+), Emperor Tiberius (r. 14-37) read daily and liked to quiz his dinner guests on trivia from the subjects he had studied that day. Apparently, a certain scholar named Seleucus was a frequent guest at Tiberius’ table and he would astound the emperor by being able to answer every question that Tiberius asked. Such knowledge and memory, however, did not come naturally to Seleucus. Instead, before he ever had a meal with Tiberius, Seleucus reportedly talked to the emperor’s servants and questioned them about what Tiberius was currently reading. With these helpful tips from the servants, Seleucus would then thoroughly study the books in question so he could answer any of the emperor’s questions.  Unfortunately for the scholar, word of Seleucus’ pre-dinner studies reached Tiberius’ ear. The emperor interpreted this as cheating and promptly cut off all contact with the scholar. Suetonius even alleged that Tiberius later forced Seleucus to commit suicide.

As for the identity of the Seleucus in the story, there happened to have been a prominent scholar with that name who likely lived during the reign of Tiberius. His name was Seleucus “Homericus” of Alexandria. He seemed to have been best known as a scholar of language—he wrote a piece on the Greek language and another on proverbs that could be found in Alexandria. Seleucus of Alexandria was also a prolific biographer and a writer of literary critiques who commented on the works of many scholars and poets. Nevertheless, other than his name and bibliography, most of his writings only remain in fragments, and little is known about the actual life of Seleucus of Alexandria. As a result, he is a plausible, but not proven, fit for Suetonius’s story.

It is possible that this story is simply folklore or rumor about Tiberius’ strange reign. After all, Suetonius’ style was dominated by stories that portrayed the personalities of his subjects, and he sometimes used rumor and satirical songs as a source to get a glimpse of public opinion toward a figure. Furthermore, Suetonius’ enthusiasm and focus seemed to decrease after he completed his biographies of Julius Caesar and Augustus—his accounts on the rest of The Twelve Caesars are shorter and less detailed. Nevertheless, much of the information recorded by Suetonius was truthful, either as historical fact, or, at least, it was genuinely what many Romans believed.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Picture Attribution: (The Great Library of Alexandria, c. 19th century, by O. Von Corven [Public Domain] via Creative Commons).

Sources:

• The Twelve Caesars by Suetonius, translated by Robert Graves and edited by James B. Rives. New York: Penguin Classics, 2007.
• http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Tiberius*.html 
• http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.013.5800  

The Odd Treason Trial Of Marcus Scribonius Libo Drusus During The Reign Of Emperor Tiberius

Tiberius was a Roman Emperor who ruled from 14-37, and his character and actions are still debated to this day. To some, he was a sympathetic figure—his brother died slowly from a broken leg, Tiberius was forced by Augustus to divorce the love of his life in order to marry another woman, and his only child from that first marriage was assassinated. Yet, to others, Tiberius was a bloodthirsty maniac who enjoyed scheming from the shadows and murdering innocents. Two incidents, in particular, contributed to Tiberius’ negative public image. For one, the man oddly withdrew to a life of isolation on the island of Capri around the year 27, only a little more than half way through his reign. The other major critique of the emperor was the numerous suspicious trials of alleged treason that occurred during the period of his rule.

The Annals of Imperial Rome by the Roman statesman and historian, Tacitus (c. 56-117), is one of the oldest surviving sources on this period of Roman history. For full disclosure, Tacitus was heavily biased against Tiberius, as well as the emperor’s mother, Livia. Yet, the historical information from which Tacitus reached his biased conclusions is considered trustworthy. Therefore, according to Tacitus, the first major victim of Tiberius’ Treason Trials was a man named Marcus Scribonius Libo Drusus.

This man, who Tacitus thankfully calls “Libo,” was a well-connected individual. He had blood ties to the imperial Julian family, but also to Caesar’s old foe, Pompey. In fact, Tacitus claimed that Libo was the grand-nephew of Augustus’ first wife, Scribonia, as well as the great-grandson of Pompey the Great. Yet, despite his laudable lineage and wealth, Libo reportedly only had one passion—the occult.

Of his supernatural interests, Libo was said to have been particularly drawn to divination and fortune telling. According to Tacitus, the curious Libo sought out astrologers, necromancers, oneiromancers (dream readers) and other teachers of magical rituals. Apparently, Libo’s pursuit of otherworldly knowledge brought him into bad company—Firmius Catus (a fellow fan of the occult) and a man named Junius (affiliated with necromancy) would both later testify against Libo during his treason trial.

Tacitus wrote that Catus was the ringleader of the group that set in motion Libo’s doom, but it was Junius, the supposed necromancer, who started the legal proceedings. He informed on Libo to a prosecutor named Lucius Fulcinius Trio, and Trio quickly demanded that the senate begin an investigation into Libo’s behavior. In 16 CE, Marcus Scribonius Libo Drusus was formally accused of subversive plotting against the emperor and was brought to trial before the senate.

Libo went to his friends and relatives, but he could not find anyone with political clout to speak on his behalf—Tacitus claimed this was caused by fear of Tiberius, who would be in attendance. By the time of the trial, Libo had supposedly fallen ill and had to be carried on a litter to the senate. He was said to have needed to lean on his brother in order to walk into the building. During the session, Libo’s accusers were almost all familiar faces, such as Catus, Junius and Trio, but others had come forward to join the prosecution team. Tacitus specifically mentioned Fonteius Agrippa and Gaius Vibius Serenus as being involved, and even some of Libo’s slaves were tortured and brought in to testify. They argued that Libo’s interest in divination was to obtain a favorable prediction about his own future wealth and political power. They also produced written evidence that supposedly proved that Libo had been hatching sinister plans against the emperor and other notable people in the empire. The handwriting on this document was verified as being that of Libo by one of the tortured slaves, but Tacitus thought this and other pieces of evidence brought before the trial were woefully inadequate.

Nevertheless, when the trial was adjourned, Libo was put under house arrest until the next session. At that time, Libo already knew there was not much hope for clearing his name. Therefore, in hopeless despair, Marcus Scribonius Libo Drusus committed suicide by stabbing himself to death soon after the Praetorian Guard escorted him to his home. After the grim deed was done, Emperor Tiberius allegedly chastised the action of the deceased, proclaiming that he would never have let the trial end in execution. Nevertheless, very little respect was shown to the fallen. The people who led the prosecution seized Libo’s property and senators among this group were also granted supernumerary praetorships. The senate also decreed that statues of Libo could not be used in funeral parades, and they barred the Scribonius family from ever using the name “Drusus,” which happened to be the name of Tiberius’ son. Perhaps worst of all, September 13, the day of Libo’s suicide, was formally made into a public holiday.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Picture Attribution: (Mural of a Roman court painted by Albert Herter (1871-1950), [Public Domain] via Creative Commons).

Sources:

• The Annals of Imperial Rome by Tacitus, translated by Michael Grant. New York: Penguin Classics, 1996.
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Tiberius 
• http://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/885305 
• http://classics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-5760 
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Drusus-Julius-Caesar  

The Scandalous Plummet Of The Extremely Wealthy Roman, Sextus Marius

For most of Emperor Tiberius’ reign (r. 14-37), a man named Sextus Marius was the richest man in the Roman-controlled Iberian Peninsula. His enormous wealth came from several productive copper and gold mines, which supplied an enviable stream of income. Around the year 33, however, Sextus Marius’ fortune was about to dramatically turn.

During the reign of Tiberius, trials of misconduct, corruption and treason seemed to constantly occur. For about half of his reign, Tiberius was fairly lenient in the endless court cases and many of the people charged with crimes by the Senate were released on Tiberius’ command during this early period. Most of the high-profile judicial deaths that did occur in Tiberius’ opening years happened because of defendants who committed suicide before the trial was concluded. Yet, several events occurred in the middle of Tiberius’ reign that made the emperor noticeably more bitter and tyrannical. The three most significant incidents included the assassination of the emperor’s son, Drusus (d. 23), the death of Tiberius’ mother, Livia (d. 29), and the execution of the emperor’s chief advisor, Sejanus (d. 31), after he was allegedly discovered to have organized the earlier assassination of Tiberius’ son. By the year 27, Tiberius had already retreated from Rome to the Island of Capri, and after the death of his mother and the execution of Sejanus, the emperor seemingly lost interest in caring for his empire, allowing corruption and oppression to flourish.

So, when the wealthy Sextus Marius was called before the Senate to stand trial in the year 33, Emperor Tiberius was no longer his old, more forgiving, self. The charges that Sextus Marius had been called forth to answer were those of committing incest with his daughter, a claim of unknown validity. The 1st-2nd century historian and statesman, Tacitus (c. 56-117), for his part, believed that the charges were false, but he was also an obsessive critic of Tiberius, suspicious of everything that happened during the emperor’s reign. Whatever the truth, the Senate found Sextus Marius guilty of the crime and condemned him to death. He was executed by being thrown off the steep Tarpeian Rock, in Rome. Tacitus theorized that the death had been a conspiracy led by Tiberius, for, after the execution, the emperor seized all of the man’s numerous copper and gold mines.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Picture Attribution: (“Punishment of Cassius”, by Augustyn Mirys (c. 1700-1790)-Public Domain).

Sources:

• The Annals of Imperial Rome by Tacitus, translated by Michael Grant. New York: Penguin Classics, 1996.  

The Ominously Smashing Amphitheatre Of Atilius In Fidenae

In the year 27, around the time Emperor Tiberius decided to leave Rome in order to spend the rest of his reign in isolation, an enterprising former-slave by the name of Atilius launched his plan to make a fortune by profiting from the insatiable Roman appetite for entertainment. The infamous result of his scheme was notable enough to be mentioned by the historians, Tacitus (c. 56-117) and Suetonius (c. 69-122).

Atilius’ plan, according to Tacitus, was to make as much money as he could by entertaining the Roman population, while at the same time minimizing his business expenses as much as possible. With this in mind, he began constructing an amphitheatre in the town of Fidenae, located a short distance to the north of Rome. Atilius obtained a full docket of gladiators and pressured for the arena to be completed with utmost speed so that he could start making money.

In this greedy frame of mind, Atilius encouraged his builders to cut corners, exchanging safety for haste. For his first error, he did not lay a sturdy foundation for his amphitheatre. Instead, he started building on uncertain ground. The amphitheatre, itself, was built of wood—which was not uncommon—but, once again, speed of construction was emphasized over quality. Despite the questionable assembly of the haphazardly made structure, Atilius’ amphitheatre must have looked convincingly presentable once it was completed. After running a laudable advertising campaign, his opening gladiatorial show managed to attract the attention of tens-of-thousands of spectators.

The Roman population must have either been ignorant of Atilius’ construction methods, or simply did not care, for on the day of the grand opening, endless masses of Romans arrived at Fidenae to see the show. Thousands upon thousands of spectators shuffled into the rickety wooden amphitheatre to find their splintery seats. Just as he had dreamed, Atilius achieved a full house on his opening day, packing men, women and children into his cheaply made venue. There is no telling how long the show actually lasted. Hopefully, the unsuspecting onlookers received some enjoyment before tragedy brought the gladiatorial games crashing to an end.

Although Atilius’ amphitheatre had enough enticing aesthetics to lure tens of thousands of people inside, it was not adequately built to handle the weight of so many people. Eventually, the creaking of the wood gave way to loud cracks, and the cheering of the crowds turned into screams. While the structure was fully packed, the amphitheatre suffered a total collapse, crushing and trapping thousands of people in the rubble. Many of those who did not die instantly during the collapse, later succumbed to their injuries during the days it took to excavate the survivors from the debris. The casualties resulting from the incident were enormous—Suetonius claimed 20,000 people died in the collapse, but Tacitus raised the number to 50,000. Ironically, Atilius was not among the injured.

According to Tacitus, the incident inspired an outpouring of good will from the leading Roman citizens. The wealthy were said to have opened up their villas to provide shelter to the injured. Medical aid, as well as food and drink, was also donated in great abundance to those affected by the catastrophe. The Roman Senate, too, did their part in the aftermath of the tragedy. They hunted down Atilius and sentenced him to exile. Finally, to prevent future deaths, the Senate also imposed heavy regulations on the entertainment industry.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Picture Attribution: (Roman amphitheatre painted by Viviano Codazzi (1604-1670) and Domenico Gargiulo (1609-1675), [Public Domain] via Creative Commons).

Sources:

• The Annals of Imperial Rome by Tacitus, translated by Michael Grant. New York: Penguin Classics, 1996. 
• http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Tiberius*.html#40 
• http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/secondary/smigra*/amphitheatrum.html 
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/20304641?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents 
• https://gineersnow.com/engineering/design/destructive-structural-collapse-engineering-history 
• http://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/59892 
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Suetonius 
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Tiberius  

A Roman Knight Was Almost Convicted Of Treason Because Of A Single Silver Plate

Around the year 22, a Roman knight named Lucius Ennius possessed a silver statue of the reigning emperor, Tiberius. According to the historian and Roman statesman, Tacitus (c. 56-117), this particular knight thought the silver in his statue was wasted on the likeness of Tiberius, and began to dream of repurposing the silver by melting it down and creating something new with the raw material. In the end, he interestingly decided on having the silver turned into a plate.

Lucius Ennius’ decision, in general, was unwise. Yet, he also picked a particularly bad time to deface a statue of an emperor. Although Emperor Tiberius was ruling in a relatively virtuous manner in the year 22, there had already been numerous treason trials and the prevalent prosecutors in the empire’s capital were all-too-willing to seize the property of supposed traitors who were faced with exile or execution. In such an atmosphere, it is unsurprising that the scandalous origin of Lucius Ennius’ brand new silver dish was discovered and he was brought before the Senate on charges of treason.

Thankfully for the knight, the year 22 fell within the more pleasant period of Tiberius’ reign, so the emperor actually forgave Lucius Ennius and vetoed the charge of treason. In response, a senator named Gaius Ateius Capito argued that the trial should be allowed to go forward, as Ennius’ action had been a crime not only against the emperor, but also the state, as a whole. Tiberius, sensing the senator was challenging his authority, doubled down on his veto of the treason charge and Lucius Ennius was spared.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Picture Attribution: (Roman feast painted by Roberto Bompiani  (1821–1908), [Public Domain] via Creative Commons).

Sources: 

• The Annals of Imperial Rome by Tacitus, translated by Michael Grant. New York: Penguin Classics, 1996. 

The Suspicious Fall Of The Roman Noblewoman, Apronia

In the dark of night, sometime in the year 24, a noblewoman named Apronia fell to her death from a high window in the city of Rome. With her at the time was her husband, Plautius Silvanus, a praetor of Rome—a high government official ranked just under the consuls. When the body of Apronia was discovered, the authorities immediately suspected Silvanus. During his interview, he claimed to have been asleep during the incident and that his wife must have committed suicide.

The case was high profile enough that the ruler of Rome at the time, Emperor Tiberius (r. 14-37), was said to have gone in person to the scene of the crime. After conducting his own investigation of the premises, Tiberius concluded that there were signs of a violent struggle in the home. Convinced that a violent crime had been committed, Emperor Tiberius brought Plautius Silvanus before the Roman Senate to be tried for murder. The senators must not have believed Silvanus’ story, for the praetor’s own grandmother, Urgulania (a friend of Tiberius’ mother), had a dagger sent to Silvanus, giving him a not-too-subtle message telling him to either fight his way out of custody or to commit suicide. Sadly, Silvanus decided to follow the latter path and, after two attempts, managed to end his own life.

Yet, even after the prime suspect’s death, the investigation into Apronia’s murder remained active. Silvanus’ ex-wife, Numantina, was also tried for involvement in the murder. She was accused of using incantations and potions in order to induce madness in Silvanus, causing him to push his wife out of the window. Fortunately, she was eventually acquitted of all charges and was released, leaving all the blame on the deceased praetor.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Picture attribution: (The Death (defenestration) of Jezebel, by Gustave Doré (1832–1883), [Public Domain] via Creative Commons).

Sources:

• The Annals of Imperial Rome by Tacitus, translated by Michael Grant. New York: Penguin Classics, 1996.  

The Grisly Decorations On The Gemonian Stairs In Rome

Around the reign of Augustus (r. 31 BCE – 14 CE), a stairway was constructed that led from the edge of the Roman Forum and ascended up the Capitoline Hill. This piece of infrastructure was known as the Gemonian Stairs or Steps (Scalae Gemoniae in Latin), and quickly gained a reputation as an infamous landmark in ancient Rome.

After the stairway was constructed, it did not take long for the location to become a frequent host to grotesque displays. Unfortunately, around the beginning of the 1st century, the Roman authorities began an unsightly tradition of using the stairway as a location to leave the exposed bodies of executed criminals. Although the steps were a depository for the disgraced dead, it was also a frequent venue for executions, in general.

The first mention of the Gemonian Stairs being used as a monument to capital punishment comes from commentary on the reign of Rome’s second emperor, Tiberius (r. 14-37). During his period of rule, it was a familiar sight to see corpses strewn along the steps. Tacitus (c. 56-117) wrote that, by the year 20, the Gemonian Stairs had become thoroughly associated with execution. During that year, when Cnaeus Calpurnius Piso was tried for the murder of Tiberius’ adopted son, Germanicus, the Roman people chose the steps as their location for a peaceful riot where they called for Piso’s execution. The Roman masses were also said to have flocked to cheer at the Gemonian Stairs more than a decade later when, in the year 31, Tiberius chose the infamous stairway as the venue for the execution of his treasonous chief administrator, Lucius Aelius Sejanus.

With the Gemonian Stairs serving such grim purposes, it is unsurprising that the path was sometimes referred to as the Stairs of Mourning. The exact location of the stairway is unknown, but many scholars believe it may have roughly lined up with the modern Via di San Pietro in Carcere, Rome.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Picture Attribution: (Cropped section of a painting of The Pomekin Stairs in Odessa, published by the Detroit Publishing Company in 1905. [Public Domain] via Creative Commons).

Sources:

• The Annals of Imperial Rome by Tacitus, translated by Michael Grant. New York: Penguin Classics, 1996. 
• http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/Europe/Italy/Lazio/Roma/Rome/_Texts/PLATOP*/Scalae_Gemoniae.html 
• http://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/627786 
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/20204211?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents 
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lucius-Aelius-Sejanus 
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nero-Roman-emperor