|
Main
- books.jibble.org
My Books
- IRC Hacks
Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare
External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd
|
books.jibble.org
Previous Page
| Next Page
Page 24
No historian who understands the affairs of the world in general, and
the story of the first century of the empire in particular, will
attribute to ferocity or to the tyrannical spirit of Tiberius the
increasingly harsh application of the _Lex de majestate_ which followed
the death of Germanicus and the trial of Piso. This harshness was the
natural reaction against the delirium of atrocious calumnies against
Tiberius which raged in the aristocracy of that time and especially in
the house of Agrippina. For she, in spite of the undeniably virtuous
character of her private life, was influenced by friends who, for
motives of political advancement took advantage of her passions and
inexperience.
Too credulous of Tacitus, many writers have severely characterized the
facility and the severity with which the senate condemned those accused
under the _Lex de majestate_: they consider it an indication of ignoble
servility toward the emperor. Yet we know very well that the Roman
senate at that time was not composed merely of adulators and hirelings;
it still included many men of intelligence and character. We can
explain this severity only by admitting that there were many persons in
the senate who judged that the emperor could not be left defenseless
against the wild slanders of the great families, since these
extravagant and insidious calumnies compromised not only the prestige
and the fame of the ruler, but also the tranquillity, the power, and
the integrity of the empire. Undoubtedly the _Lex de majestate_ did
give rise in time to false accusations, to private reprisals, and to
unjust sentences of condemnation. Although it had been devised to
defend the prestige of the state in the person of the magistrates who
represented it, the law was frequently invoked by senators who wished
to vent their fiercest personal hatreds. Nor can it be denied that
cupidity was the cause of many iniquitous calumnies directed against
wealthy persons whose fortunes were coveted by their accusers. Yet we
must go slow in accusing Tiberius of these excesses. Tacitus himself,
who was averse to the emperor, recounts several incidents which show
him in the act of intervening in trials of high treason for the benefit
of the accused precisely for the purpose of hindering these excesses of
private vengeance. The accounts which we have of many other trials are
so brief and so biased that it is not fair for us to hazard a judgment.
We do know, however, that after the death of Germanicus there was
formed at Rome, in the imperial family and the senate, a party of
Agrippina, which began an implacable war upon Tiberius, and that
Tiberius, the so-called tyrant, was at the beginning very weak,
undecided, and vacillating in his resistance to this new opposition.
His opponents did not spare his person; they did their best to spread
the belief that the emperor was a poisoner, and persecuted him
relentlessly with this calumny; they were already pushing forward Nero,
the first-born son of Germanicus, though in 21 A.D. he was only
fourteen years old, in order that he might in time be made the rival of
Tiberius. The latter, indeed, tried at first to moderate the charges
of high treason, his supreme defense; he feigned that he did not know
or did not see many things, and instead of resisting, he began to make
long sojourns away from Rome, thus turning over the capital, in which
the pretorian guard remained, to the calumnies of his enemies. Of all
these enemies the most terrible was Agrippina, who, passionate,
vehement, without judgment, abused in good faith both the relationship
which protected her and the pity which her misfortune had aroused. She
allowed no occasion for taunting Tiberius with his pretended crime to
escape her, using to this end not only words, but scenes and actions,
which impressed the public even more strongly than open accusations
could have done. A supper to which Tiberius had invited her became
famous at Rome, for at it she refused obstinately and ostentatiously to
touch any food or drink whatever, to the astonishment of the guests,
who understood perfectly what her gestures meant. And such calumnies
and such affronts Tiberius answered only with a weary and disdainful
inertia; at most, when his patience was exhausted, some bitter and
concise reproof would escape him.
I have no doubt that Tiberius had resolved at the beginning to avoid
all harsh measures as far as possible; for unpopular, misunderstood,
and detested as he was, he did not dare to use violence against a large
part of the aristocracy and against his own house. Furthermore,
Agrippina was the least intelligent of the women of the family, and her
senseless opposition could be tolerated as long as Livia and Antonia,
the two really serious ladies of the family, sided with Tiberius. But
it is easy to understand that this situation could not long endure. A
power which defends itself weakly against the attacks of its enemies is
destined to sink rapidly into a decline, and the party of Agrippina
would therefore quickly have gained favor and power had there not
arisen, to sustain the vacillating strength of Tiberius, a man whose
name was to become sadly famous--Sejanus--the commander of the
pretorian guard.
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|