and heart’ with which he endowed the empire. 22 Suetonius, Tacitus and Dio, concerned more exclusively with life within Rome and, in particular,
senatorial Rome, present instead a man whose every action is open to negative construction.
In Suetonius’ case, this second Tiberius, visible for the most part only during his sixties and seventies, poses problems for the writer. For Suetonius subscribes to the ancient belief in
the immutability of character (despite the repeated volte-faces and circumambulations of several of his twelve subjects). Thinking on his feet, he pinpoints evidence of cruelty in Tiberius’
childhood. As Tacitus states more explicitly, that cruel impulse which defines the ‘real’ Tiberius only ever slips from view as a result of conscious dissimulation. Suetonius offers us
instances of enlightenment and benignity on Tiberius’ part – his patience ‘in the face of abuse and slander, and of lampoons on himself and his family’; his belief in
freedom of speech and thought in a free country – trusting that we will formulate our own conclusions. Occasionally he guides our hand: ‘Little by little he unmasked the ruler, and
although for some time his conduct was variable, yet he more often showed himself kindly and devoted to the public weal.’ Insinuation aside, this is the layman’s ‘lost’
Tiberius, a diligent and conscientious public servant. He has been overshadowed by that geriatric pervert who enjoys underwater the tickle of small boys’ tongues against his cock, a monster
created by scandal mongers and partly of Suetonius’ own invention. In this instance, Suetonius cannot have it both ways. Two factors come to his assistance: the ascendancy of Sejanus and
Tiberius’ retirement to Capri. The latter suggeststhe ending of one chapter and the beginning of another and facilitates a shift in tone and change of narrative gear.
Before that, the former, like a playwright’s deus ex machina , intervenes to unknot the apparent contradictions between Suetonius’ two Tiberiuses: this Sejanus is a catalyst.
Henceforth, the villain in Tiberius will prevail.
In September AD 23, Tiberius disguised his grief at Drusus’ death. He curtailed the period of formal mourning, while his behaviour soon after
towards a visiting deputation suggested that he had already forgotten his bereavement. We have learned to mistrust Tiberius’ public emotions. Two years previously he had made his son consul
for the second time; the following year he awarded him tribunician power. He also entrusted Drusus with guardianship of the elder sons of Germanicus and Agrippina, his heirs in the next generation,
a move which went some way towards sidelining Agrippina and minimizing what Tiberius undoubtedly regarded as her malign influence. He acted in accord with a pattern established by Augustus. With
Germanicus dead, Drusus became his father’s heir: office-holding and grants of power paved the way for the succession; the whimsicality of fate demanded an heir in the second generation.
Inspiration for these developments lay in pragmatism rather than affection. As so often in Augustus’ quest to ensure the succession, it was not to be.
In the event, Tiberius appeared to have chosen an alternative helpmeet in government. A speech given by the emperor in the senate in 20, while Drusus was still alive, suggested that Tiberius had
chosen to place his trust in the man who had recently succeeded his father as prefect of the Praetorian Guard: Lucius Aelius Sejanus. For the next decade of Tiberius’ reign, itwas Sejanus rather than any member of the imperial family who came closest to exercising power. For a period he did so with the princeps ’ full consent. In time, of course,
his fall matched his rise.
His name has become a byword for ambition. Sejanus was born of Etruscan equestrian stock but adopted into the senatorial family of Quintus Aelius Tubero in Rome. Hard-working
and opportunistic –
senatorial Rome, present instead a man whose every action is open to negative construction.
In Suetonius’ case, this second Tiberius, visible for the most part only during his sixties and seventies, poses problems for the writer. For Suetonius subscribes to the ancient belief in
the immutability of character (despite the repeated volte-faces and circumambulations of several of his twelve subjects). Thinking on his feet, he pinpoints evidence of cruelty in Tiberius’
childhood. As Tacitus states more explicitly, that cruel impulse which defines the ‘real’ Tiberius only ever slips from view as a result of conscious dissimulation. Suetonius offers us
instances of enlightenment and benignity on Tiberius’ part – his patience ‘in the face of abuse and slander, and of lampoons on himself and his family’; his belief in
freedom of speech and thought in a free country – trusting that we will formulate our own conclusions. Occasionally he guides our hand: ‘Little by little he unmasked the ruler, and
although for some time his conduct was variable, yet he more often showed himself kindly and devoted to the public weal.’ Insinuation aside, this is the layman’s ‘lost’
Tiberius, a diligent and conscientious public servant. He has been overshadowed by that geriatric pervert who enjoys underwater the tickle of small boys’ tongues against his cock, a monster
created by scandal mongers and partly of Suetonius’ own invention. In this instance, Suetonius cannot have it both ways. Two factors come to his assistance: the ascendancy of Sejanus and
Tiberius’ retirement to Capri. The latter suggeststhe ending of one chapter and the beginning of another and facilitates a shift in tone and change of narrative gear.
Before that, the former, like a playwright’s deus ex machina , intervenes to unknot the apparent contradictions between Suetonius’ two Tiberiuses: this Sejanus is a catalyst.
Henceforth, the villain in Tiberius will prevail.
In September AD 23, Tiberius disguised his grief at Drusus’ death. He curtailed the period of formal mourning, while his behaviour soon after
towards a visiting deputation suggested that he had already forgotten his bereavement. We have learned to mistrust Tiberius’ public emotions. Two years previously he had made his son consul
for the second time; the following year he awarded him tribunician power. He also entrusted Drusus with guardianship of the elder sons of Germanicus and Agrippina, his heirs in the next generation,
a move which went some way towards sidelining Agrippina and minimizing what Tiberius undoubtedly regarded as her malign influence. He acted in accord with a pattern established by Augustus. With
Germanicus dead, Drusus became his father’s heir: office-holding and grants of power paved the way for the succession; the whimsicality of fate demanded an heir in the second generation.
Inspiration for these developments lay in pragmatism rather than affection. As so often in Augustus’ quest to ensure the succession, it was not to be.
In the event, Tiberius appeared to have chosen an alternative helpmeet in government. A speech given by the emperor in the senate in 20, while Drusus was still alive, suggested that Tiberius had
chosen to place his trust in the man who had recently succeeded his father as prefect of the Praetorian Guard: Lucius Aelius Sejanus. For the next decade of Tiberius’ reign, itwas Sejanus rather than any member of the imperial family who came closest to exercising power. For a period he did so with the princeps ’ full consent. In time, of course,
his fall matched his rise.
His name has become a byword for ambition. Sejanus was born of Etruscan equestrian stock but adopted into the senatorial family of Quintus Aelius Tubero in Rome. Hard-working
and opportunistic –
Similar Books
