I.
Cn. Domitius et Camillus Scribonianus consulatum inierant, cum Caesar tramisso quod Capreas et Surrentum interluit freto Campaniam praelegebat, ambiguus an urbem intraret, seu, quia contra destinaverat, speciem venturi simulans. et saepe in propinqua degressus, aditis iuxta Tiberim hortis, saxa rursum et solitudinem maris repetiit pudore scelerum et libidinum quibus adeo indomitis exarserat ut more regio pubem ingenuam stupris pollueret. nec formam tantum et decora corpora set in his modestam pueritiam, in aliis imagines maiorum incitamentum cupidinis habebat. tuncque primum ignota antea vocabula reperta sunt sellariorum et spintriarum ex foeditate loci ac multiplici patientia; praepositique servi qui conquirerent pertraherent, dona in promptos, minas adversum abnuentis, et si retinerent propinquus aut parens, vim raptus suaque ipsi libita velut in captos exercebant.
1.
The consulate of Gnaeus Domitius and Camillus Scribonianus had just begun, when Tiberius cut across the channel that separates Capri from Sorrento and followed the coast of Campania, vacillating whether he should enter Rome or, just because he had no such intention, merely pretend to be on his way there. He made several landings in the vicinity of the city, paid visit to the gardens of Caesar by the Tiber, then regained the solitude of his retreat in the sea among the rocky slopes of Capri. He was ashamed of his criminal slavery to lust, which had flared up uncontrollably and reached such excesses that, in the manner of oriental despots, he would deprave even the children of free-born parents. His illicit desires were excited not only by physical form and beauty, but also by the infantile pudor in some children and by the thought of their glorious ancestry in others. It was then for the first time that words like ‘sellarii’ and ‘spintriae’ became current, from the filthiness of such places as outhouses or privies and the willingness to submit to various forms of perversion. Slaves were assigned whose task was to locate and bring in new recruits by offering gifts to those consenting or threats to those resisting. If a relative or a parent refused, they had recourse to force and would have their way with them as if their victims were captives in war.
II.
At Romae principio anni, quasi recens cognitis Liviae flagitiis ac non pridem etiam punitis, atroces sententiae dicebantur in effigies quoque ac memoriam eius et bona Seiani ablata aerario ut in fiscum cogerentur, tamquam referret. Scipiones haec et Silani et Cassii isdem ferme aut paulum immutatis verbis adseveratione multa censebant, cum repente Togonius Gallus, dum ignobilitatem suam magnis nominibus inserit, per deridiculum auditur. nam principem orabat deligere senatores ex quis viginti sorte ducti et ferro accincti, quoties curiam inisset, salutem eius defenderent. crediderat nimirum epistulae subsidio sibi alterum ex consulibus poscentis ut tutus a Capreis urbem peteret. Tiberius tamen, ludibria seriis permiscere solitus, egit grates benevolentiae patrum: sed quos omitti posse, quos deligi? semperne eosdem an subinde alios? et honoribus perfunctos an iuvenes, privatos an e magistratibus? quam deinde speciem fore sumentium in limine curiae gladios? neque sibi vitam tanti si armis tegenda foret. haec adversus Togonium verbis moderans neque ultra abolitionem sententiae suaderet.
2.
At Rome, near the outset of the year, it was as if the iniquities of Livia had just been revealed and had not already been punished a long time before. The most drastic measures were still being proposed against the statues and the memory of her. It was also demanded that Sejanus’ confiscated assets be removed from the public treasury and deposited in that of the prince, as if that was of any relevance. Such proposals were advanced with extraordinary emphasis and in very similar language, merely varying in small details, delivered by men bearing such illustrious names as Scipio, Silanus, and Cassius, when suddenly Togonius Gallus made himself laughable in an attempt to interpose his own insignificance among these great names. He begged the prince to name a number of senators from which twenty were to be chosen by lot and would, armed with swords, provide security whenever he entered the curia. Togonius must have taken seriously Tiberius’ request in a letter in which he demanded to be escorted by one of the consuls when he would travel from Capri to Rome. In answer to Togonius’ speech, Tiberius, who knew how to blend sarcasm with serious talk, sent a message of thanks for the fathers’ concern for his safety. He asked which senators he was to choose and which to omit. Would they be always the same or would they be replaced? Would they be young or men with a career behind them, magistrates or private citizens? What spectacle would they present when girding themselves with swords at the entrance to the senate house? His life, he wrote, was not worth much if it must be defended using arms. The answer to Togonius was essentially benevolent and did not suggest anything other than the rejection of the proposal.
III.
At Iunium Gallionem qui censuerat ut praetoriani actis stipendiis ius apiscerentur in quattuordecim ordinibus sedendi violenter increpuit, velut coram rogitans quid illi cum militibus quos neque dicta imperatoris neque praemia nisi ab imperatore accipere par esset. repperisse prorsus quod divus Augustus non providerit: an potius discordiam et seditionem a satellite quaesitam, qua rudis animos nomine honoris ad corrumpendum militiae morem propelleret? hoc pretium Gallio meditatae adulationis tulit, statim curia, deinde Italia exactus; et quia incusabatur facile toleraturus exilium delecta Lesbo, insula nobili et amoena, retrahitur in urbem custoditurque domibus magistratuum. isdem litteris Caesar Sextium Paconianum praetorium perculit magno patrum gaudio, audacem maleficum, omnium secreta rimantem delectumque ab Seiano cuius ope dolus G. Caesari pararetur. quod postquam patefactum prorupere concepta pridem odia et summum supplicium decernebatur ni professus indicium foret.
3.
When Junius Gallio, on the contrary, moved that the praetorian soldiers who had completed their years of service should have the right to sit in the fourteen rows reserved in the theater for the equestrian order, Tiberius reacted violently and, in a letter, berated him angrily, as if facing him in person. He demanded what business Gallio had to meddle with the soldiers, who must receive their orders, as well as their rewards, from the emperor and from the emperor alone. Did he really think he had discovered something that the divine Augustus had not thought about? Or perhaps was he a satellite of Sejanus, trying to kindle discord and rebellion among rude men and push them, ostensibly promising privileges, to subvert military discipline? Gallio’s payback for his elaborate flattery was the immediate removal from the senate, then soon after from Italy, and because many objected that there was nothing unpleasant about being exiled to the island of Lesbos –- the place of his choice, one well known for its charms –- he was dragged back to Rome and placed under surveillance in the house of a magistrate. In the same letter Tiberius attacked the ex-praetor Sextius Paconianus, an act that the senate applauded with joy, for Sextius was a brazen, malevolent man, given to ferreting out other people’s secrets and Sejanus’ choice instrument in his plan to overthrow Gaius Caesar. After the scheme was revealed, hatreds long repressed came flooding out: a capital sentence was imminent had he not offered to incriminate others.
IV.
Ut vero Latinium Latiarem ingressus est, accusator ac reus iuxta invisi gratissimum spectaculum praebebantur. Latiaris, ut rettuli, praecipuus olim circumveniendi Titii Sabini et tunc luendae poenae primus fuit. inter quae Haterius Agrippa consules anni prioris invasit, cur mutua accusatione intenta nunc silerent: metum prorsus et noxae conscientiam pro foedere haberi; at non patribus reticenda quae audivissent. Regulus manere tempus ultionis seque coram principe executurum; Trio aemulationem inter collegas et si qua discordes iecissent melius oblitterari respondit. Vrgente Agrippa Sanquinius Maximus e consularibus oravit senatum ne curas imperatoris conquisitis insuper acerbitatibus augerent: sufficere ipsum statuendis remediis. sic Regulo salus et Trioni dilatio exitii quaesita. Haterius invisior fuit quia somno aut libidinosis vigiliis marcidus et ob segnitiam quamvis crudelem principem non metuens inlustribus viris perniciem inter ganeam ac stupra meditabatur.
4.
Accordingly, when Sestius denounced Latinius Latiaris and accuser and accused, both equally hated, faced each other in court, the spectacle was most gratifying. Latiaris, as I mentioned, was the man directly responsible for Titus Sabinus’ entrapment and he became the first of his group to go under. While the trial was on, Haterius Agrippa assailed the consuls of the previous year, asking why, after their exchange of accusations, they now chose to keep silent. It was clear, he said, that fear and the conscience of culpability on either side took the place of a formal entente between them, but the senate could simply not ignore what everyone had heard. Regulus responded by saying that the time for his revenge had not yet come and that he intended to press his case when the emperor would be present. Trio’s reply was that it was preferable to erase from memory any words that had passed between them in the heat of a quarrel, which should be imputed to the vying usual among colleagues. Agrippa kept insisting, but Sanguinius Maximus, one of the ex-consuls, urged the assembly not to add to the emperor’s anxieties by dredging up new motives for resentment and to leave such matters to him, who best knew what remedies would be needed. Thus, Regulus’ safety was assured and Trio’s downfall was averted for the time being. Haterius became more unpopular than ever. Debilitated by slumbers or by orgiastic vigils, shielded from Tiberius’ cruelty by his brutish inertia, he nevertheless kept scheming the ruin of men far better than himself, between bouts of gluttonous debauchery and unbridled lust.
V.
Exim Cotta Messalinus, saevissimae cuiusque sententiae auctor eoque inveterata invidia, ubi primum facultas data arguitur pleraque C. Caesarem quasi incertae virilitatis, et cum die natali Augustae inter sacerdotes epularetur, novendialem eam cenam dixisse; querensque de potentia M’. Lepidi ac L. Arruntii, cum quibus ob rem pecuniariam disceptabat, addidisse: ‘illos quidem senatus, me autem tuebitur Tiberiolus meus.’ quae cuncta a primoribus civitatis revincebatur iisque instantibus ad imperatorem provocavit. nec multo post litterae adferuntur quibus in modum defensionis, repetito inter se atque Cottam amicitiae principio crebrisque eius officiis commemoratis, ne verba prave detorta neu convivalium fabularum simplicitas in crimen duceretur postulavit.
5.
Next, as soon as the senate’s crowded agenda permitted, charges were brought against Cotta Messalinus, a senator long hated for advancing the harshest proposals in the assembly. The accusation included his having suggested more than once that the manhood of Gaius Caesar was doubtful, and having described a dinner of priests celebrating Augustus’ birthday, at which he was present, as being more like a funeral banquet. In addition, in complaining of the excessive power of Marcus Lepidus and of Lucius Arruntius, with both of whom he had differences of a financial nature, he was reported to have added that if those two were protected by the senate, he was in turn defended by ‘his little Tiberius’. These points all the more authoritative personalities in Rome confirmed in spite of his denials. Faced with such opposition, he had recourse to the emperor, who not long after sent a letter in defence of Cotta, in which he recounted the origins of his friendship with the accused and the many services received from him. He concluded by advising the senate that words distorted by ill will and the easy talk at the dinner table should not be turned into grounds for prosecution.
VI.
Insigne visum est earum Caesaris litterarum initium; nam his verbis exorsus est: ‘quid scribam vobis, patres conscripti, aut quo modo scribam aut quid omnino non scribam hoc tempore, di me deaeque peius perdant quam perire me cotidie sentio, si scio.’ adeo facinora atque flagitia sua ipsi quoque in supplicium verterant. neque frustra praestantissimus sapientiae firmare solitus est, si recludantur tyrannorum mentes, posse aspici laniatus et ictus, quando ut corpora verberibus, ita saevitia, libidine, malis consultis animus dilaceretur. quippe Tiberium non fortuna, non solitudines protegebant quin tormenta pectoris suasque ipse poenas fateretur.
6.
The way that same letter began appeared rather puzzling. The prelude was this: “If I knew at this moment what I would write to you, coscript fathers, how to write it, or whether I should write at all, may all the gods and goddesses kill me more cruelly than I feel myself perishing each day.” His misdeeds and abominations, bent on retribution, turned entirely against him. Not in vain was the greatest teacher of virtue wont to assert that, were it possible to lay bare the hearts of despots, hideous disfigurements and lacerations would be laid bare. As the body is marked by the whip, so the soul is by injustice, lust, and rancour. Tiberius was surely not shielded by his exalted state or by the solitude of Capri from having to confess the torment of his conscience and the punishment he had brought upon himself.
VII.
Tum facta patribus potestate statuendi de Caeciliano senatore qui plurima adversum Cottam prompserat, placitum eandem poenam inrogari quam in Aruseium et Sanquinium, accusatores L. Arruntii: quo non aliud honorificentius Cottae evenit, qui nobilis quidem set egens ob luxum, per flagitia infamis, sanctissimis Arruntii artibus dignitate ultionis aequabatur. Q. Servaeus posthac et Minucius Thermus inducti, Servaeus praetura functus et quondam Germanici comes, Minucius equestri loco, modeste habita Seiani amicitia; unde illis maior miseratio. contra Tiberius praecipuos ad scelera increpans admonuit C. Cestium patrem dicere senatui quae sibi scripisset, suscepitque Cestius accusationem. quod maxime exitiabile tulere illa tempora, cum primores senatus infimas etiam delationes exercerent, alii propalam, multi per occultum; neque discerneres alienos a coniunctis, amicos ab ignotis, quid repens aut vetustate obscurum: perinde in foro, in convivio, quaqua de re locuti incusabantur, ut quis praevenire et reum destinare properat, pars ad subsidium sui, plures infecti quasi valetudine et contactu. sed Minucius et Servaeus damnati indicibus accessere. tractique sunt in casum eundem Iulius Africanus e Santonis Gallica civitate, Seius Quadratus: originem non repperi. neque sum ignarus a plerisque scriptoribus omissa multorum pericula et poenas, dum copia fatiscunt aut quae ipsis nimia et maesta fuerant ne pari taedio lecturos adficerent verentur: nobis pleraque digna cognitu obvenere, quamquam ab aliis incelebrata.
7.
Authority was then given the assembly to try Gaius Caecilianus, one of its members who had been the main witness in Cotta’s trial. It was agreed to apply the same penalty as that assigned to Aruseius and Sanquinius, the informers against Lucius Arruntius. This was the best compliment ever paid to Cotta. High-born, certainly, but impoverished by his dissolute lifestyle and discredited by his misdeeds, he saw himself elevated to the par of Arruntius’ incomparable merits in that he was rated worthy of the same requital for being wrongly accused. It was next the turn of Quintus Servaeus, a former questor who had served under Germanicus, and of Minucius Thermus, a knight, to be summoned. Both had been Sejanus’ friends, but without deriving personal advantage from the connection, a fact that gained them general commiseration in view of their present plight. Tiberius, on the contrary, decried them as being deeply in league with Sejanus and called on Gaius Cestius senior to declare before the assembly what he had revealed in a letter to the prince himself. Cestius undertook the prosecution as instructed: it was indeed the bane of those terrible times that even foremost senators would stoop to the most repugnant denunciations, some openly, many in secrecy, without distinguishing strangers from relatives, unknown persons from friends, things said yesterday from things expressed in a nebulous past. Whoever spoke about anything, however casual, whether in private or in public, might equally expose himself to incrimination, since everyone was eager to be the first to accuse. Some did it in self defence, but most behaved as if infected with a highly contagious disease. Minucius and Servaeus, once declared guilty, were quick to turn informers themselves, dragging to the same ruin Julius Africanus from the Gallic nation of the Senones and Seius Quadratus, whose origin I have been unable to discover. I am not unaware that certain writers have passed under silence the trials and penalties of many, disgusted by their high numbers or fearing that their readers might be affected by the same tedium they themselves had found so trying and depressing. As for me, I have come across many facts worthy of mention, though ignored by others.
VIII.
Nam ea tempestate qua Seiani amicitiam ceteri falso exuerant ausus est eques Romanus M. Terentius, ob id reus, amplecti, ad hunc modum apud senatum ordiendo: ‘fortunae quidem meae fortasse minus expediat adgnoscere crimen quam abnuere: sed utcumque casura res est, fatebor et fuisse me Seiano amicum et ut essem expetisse et postquam adeptus eram laetatum. videram collegam patris regendis praetoriis cohortibus, mox urbis et militiae munis simul obeuntem. illius propinqui et adfines honoribus augebantur; ut quisque Seiano intimus ita ad Caesaris amicitiam validus: contra quibus infensus esset, metu ac sordibus conflictabantur. nec quemquam exemplo adsumo: cunctos qui novissimi consilii expertes fuimus meo unius discrimine defendam. non enim Seianum Vulsiniensem set Claudiae et Iuliae domus partem, quas adfinitate occupaverat, tuum, Caesar, generum, tui consulatus socium, tua officia in re publica capessentem colebamus. non est nostrum aestimare quem supra ceteros et quibus de causis extollas: tibi summum rerum iudicium di dedere, nobis obsequii gloria relicta est. spectamus porro quae coram habentur, cui ex te opes honores, quis plurima iuvandi nocendive potentia, quae Seiano fuisse nemo negaverit. abditos principis sensus et si quid occultius parat exquirere inlicitum, anceps: nec ideo adsequare. ne, patres conscripti, ultimum Seiani diem sed sedecim annos cogitaveritis. etiam Satrium atque Pomponium venerabamur; libertis quoque ac ianitoribus eius notescere pro magnifico accipiebatur. quid ergo? indistincta haec defensio et promisca dabitur? immo iustis terminis dividatur. insidiae in rem publicam, consilia caedis adversum imperatorem puniantur: de amicitia et officiis idem finis et te, Caesar, et nos absolverit.’
8.
A good example of such neglect is the case of the knight Marcus Terentius. When all others mendaciously refused to acknowledge their friendship with Sejanus on being accused of the crime, he had the courage to accept the charge and to justify himself before the senate in the following manner: “Perhaps my situation will be helped less by admitting the accusation than by rejecting it, but whatever may happen, I confess having been Sejanus’ friend, of having desired his friendship, and of having rejoiced on having it granted. I had seen him the colleague of his father in command of the praetorian guard, then holding various offices both civil and military. His relatives, both by blood and by marriage, gained much influence and honor through him. The closer the ties with Sejanus the more one could count on Caesar’s favor; his enmity exposed anyone to danger and humiliation. I do not refer to any individual as a case in point. At the risk of no one but myself, I will speak for those who, like me, had no part in his last intrigues. Indeed, we did not know the Sejanus of Vulsinii, we knew him as a member of the Julian and of the Claudian family, both of which he entered through marriage alliances. It was your son-in-law we wooed, Caesar, it was your colleague in the consulship, the man who replaced you in your absence. It is not for us to judge the person you raise above all others or your reasons for doing it. To you have the gods given supreme mastery of all things, to us belong only the glory to obey. We merely see what stands before us, the men on whom you choose to grant riches and standing, who have the greatest potential to help us or to thrust us down. That Sejanus was such a man no one will deny. To fathom the decisions that the emperor formulates in the secrecy of his mind is not only illicit, it is dangerous and a vain effort to boot. Do not consider, coscript fathers, only the last days of Sejanus, but all the sixteen years he was in power. We paid homage even to a Satrius and to a Pomponius; to be recognized by Sejanus’ former slaves and his doorkeepers was already an extraordinary privilege. What then, you may ask? Is this kind of defense to be invoked by everyone without discrimination and in every case? Certainly not; a clear distinction must be made and limits set: conspiracies to subvert the state, plots to murder the emperor, let those be punished; about friendship, however, and the proprieties it entails, to have severed it at the same time you yourself did should exonerate both you and us.”
IX.
Constantia orationis et quia repertus erat qui efferret quae omnes animo agitabant eo usque potuere ut accusatores eius, additis quae ante deliquerant, exilio aut morte multarentur. Secutae dehinc Tiberii litterae in Sex. Vistilium praetorium, quem Druso fratri percarum in cohortem suam transtulerat. causa offensionis Vistilio fuit, seu composuerat quaedam in Gaium Caesarem ut impudicum, sive ficto habita fides. atque ob id convictu principis prohibitus cum senili manu ferrum temptavisset, obligat venas; precatusque per codicillos, immiti rescripto venas resolvit. acervatim ex eo Annius Pollio, Appius Silanus Scauro Mamerco simul ac Sabino Calvisio maiestatis postulantur, et Vinicianus Pollioni patri adiciebatur, clari genus et quidam summis honoribus. contremuerantque patres (nam quotus quisque adfinitatis aut amicitiae tot inlustrium virorum expers erat?), ni Celsus urbanae cohortis tribunus, tum inter indices, Appium et Calvisium discrimini exemisset. Caesar Pollionis ac Viniciani Scaurique causam ut ipse cum senatu nosceret distulit, datis quibusdam in Scaurum tristibus notis.
9.
The daring of this speech and the very fact that someone had been found to express what was on everyone’s mind was so powerful a force that the accusers of Terentius were condemned to exile or death, other charges being added for crimes perpetrated earlier. A letter of Tiberius arrived with accusations directed against Sextus Vestilius, a former praetor, very dear to his brother Drusus and for that reason admitted to his immediate entourage. The motive of Vestilius’ disgrace was that he had either written a scurrilous piece describing Gaius Caesar as a libertine or that a false imputation was believed. Excluded for that reason from the prince’s table, the aged man made fumbling attempts at severing his veins, then bound up the wound, only to open it again after writing to Tiberius a letter begging for mercy and receiving an unsparing answer. After Vestilius, a throng of men were indicted for treason: Annius Pollio, Appius Silanus, Scaurus Mamercus, Sabinus Calvisius, and Vicinianus, the son of Pollio, all of noble houses, some distinguished by high office. Terror spread among the senators, for few of them could consider themselves unrelated by marriage or friendship with such a large number of prominent men. Fortunately, Celsus, the tribune of an urban cohort and also one of the prosecutors, rescued Appius and Calvisius from danger. Tiberius postponed the trials of Pollio, Vicinianus, and also of Scaurus, reserving them for later examination in the senate by him personally, but added menacing comments in reference to Scaurus.
X.
Ne feminae quidem exsortes periculi. quia occupandae rei publicae argui non poterant, ob lacrimas incusabantur; necataque est anus Vitia, Fufii Gemini mater, quod filii necem flevisset. haec apud senatum: nec secus apud principem Vescularius Flaccus ac Iulius Marinus ad mortem aguntur, e vetustissimis familiarium, Rhodum secuti et apud Capreas individui, Vescularius insidiarum in Libonem internuntius; Marino participe Seianus Curtium Atticum oppresserat. quo laetius acceptum sua exempla in consultores recidisse. Per idem tempus L. Piso pontifex, rarum in tanta claritudine, fato obiit, nullius servilis sententiae sponte auctor et quoties necessitas ingrueret sapienter moderans. patrem ei censorium fuisse memoravi; aetas ad octogesimum annum processit; decus triumphale in Thraecia meruerat. sed praecipua ex eo gloria quod praefectus urbi recens continuam potestatem et insolentia parendi graviorem mire temperavit.
10.
Not even women were safe from the dangers of prosecution and since they could not be accused of designs against the empire, their tears were made an indictable offense. Vitia, a woman of advanced years and mother of Fufius Geminus, was executed for mourning her son. The case was tried by the senate, but the prince was just as ruthless, since he had Vescularius Atticus and Julius Marinus executed, two of his oldest and closest friends who had followed him to Rhodes and were his inseparable companions in the island of Capri. Vescularius had acted as Tiberius’ agent in the conspiracy against Libo; Marnus was an accomplice of Sejanus in the death of Curtius Atticus, therefore all the more joy was felt on hearing that the perpetrators of these villainies had fallen in the same traps they had set for others. It was also at about this time that the pontiff Lucius Piso died of natural causes, an unusual end for a man so highly placed. He had never put forward any motion with the intent to flatter and when constrained by necessity, he was always the moderating voice of reason. The son of a censor, as I have previously mentioned, he lived to the ripe old age of eighty. In Thrace he had earned the honor of a triumph, but his greatest glory he achieved by having been prefect of Rome, and balancing his power with extraordinary competence in an office only recently made permanent and the authority of which was much resisted by a public unaccustomed to obey.