¹ See Griffin, M. T., Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics (Oxford, 1976), p. 3Google Scholar

² Suetonius, Gaius 16.1: ‘Titi Labieni, Cordi Cremuti, Cassi Severi scripta senatus consultis abolita requiri et esse in manibus lectitarique permisit “quando maxime sua interesset ut facta quaeque posteris tradantur”.’

³ Manning, C. E., On Seneca's Ad Marciam (Leiden, 1981), pp. 2, 87Google Scholar.

⁴ On exile, see also 9.4, 17.5, 22.3. Abel, C. K., Bauformen in Senecas Dialogen (Heidelberg, 1967), pp. 159–60Google Scholar; Manning, C. E., On Seneca's Ad Marciam (Leiden, 1981), p. 3Google Scholar.

⁵ On this whole problem of dating, see Griffin, M. T., Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics (Oxford, 1976), pp. 347ffGoogle Scholar. and Manning, C. E., On Seneca's Ad Marciam (Leiden, 1981), pp. 1–7.Google Scholar

⁶ Griffin, op. cit., p. 396. A date in 41 itself, after the death of Gaius and before Seneca's exile, seems unlikely too, since Seneca does not mention Claudius nor the reign of Gaius, e.g. see Ad Polybium De Consolatione 17.3–6. Griffin, op. cit., pp. 59–60, however, feels that the exile of Seneca took place late in the.year not early in the year. There is no clear evidence, but Dio 60.8.5 does place the exile of Seneca, in relative terms, among the last acts of the year. The Ad Marciam could conceivably date from this period between the death of Gaius in January and the time of Seneca's formal exile; yet it is odd that Claudius and the benefits his reign will bring are not at least mentioned; nor that Gaius is dead. Praise of Claudius peppers the Ad Polybium and Gaius is mentioned as a bad exemplar in the Ad Helviam. Both were written fairly early in the reign of Claudius. On the Consolations, see Fillion-Lahille, J., ‘La production littéraire de Sénèque sous les règnes de Caligula et de Claude, sens philosophique et portée politique’, ANRW 2.36.3 (1989), 1606–16.Google Scholar

⁷ Manning, C. E., On Seneca's Ad Marciam (Leiden, 1981), pp. 3–4Google Scholar The fact that Metilius' maternal grandfather, Cremutius Cordus, had fallen into disrepute during the reign of Tiberius need not necessarily have meant that the ‘Elder Metilius’ and his son suffered in any way. See Manning, op. cit., p. 141.

⁸ It has been argued that Seneca himself organized the publication of the Ad Marciam in a collection perhaps published in 62 or later; cf. Schmidt, E. G., ‘Die Anordnung der Dialoge Senecas’, Helikon 1 (1961), 245–63Google Scholar. If this was the case, Seneca may have edited out any references to Gaius. Equally, he should have inserted praise of the incumbent emperor. The ‘argumentum ex silentio’ is rather weak in this instance.

⁹ See Manning, op. cit., p. 3.

¹⁰ Griffin, M. T., Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics (Oxford, 1976), p. 397Google Scholar.

¹¹ There is little sustained evidence that the reputation of Tiberius was ever actually under an imperial cloud during the reign of Gaius. The sources which imply that an unfavourable attitude towards Tiberius existed are rather inconsistent on this point. Gaius is said to have given a eulogy for Tiberius at his public funeral, making a great show of affection (Suetonius, Gaius 15.1; Dio 58.28.5, 59.3.7–8, 59.4.2–3). At least in the early days of Gaius' principate, Tiberius was generally honoured, and we cannot state categorically, because of the contradictory evidence of Dio, that the memory of Tiberius, even later, was ever actually in disgrace. After the so-called turning point in 39, although Gaius allegedly threatened the Senate with memories of the regime of Tiberius (Dio 59.16.1–11; cf. Dio 59.19.1–2), it seems unlikely, given this air of uncertainty, that Seneca would have felt that praise of Tiberius in the Ad Marciam alone would have been enough to flatter the capricious Gaius.

¹² For example, Suetonius, Gaius 34–5, 49, 53; Dio 59.19.3–7, 20.6, 23.3–4, 25.9, 26.1–2.

¹³ Suetonius, Gaius 26; Dio 59.20.1–3.

¹⁴ Suetonius, Gaius 53; Dio 59.19.7–8.

¹⁵ It is true that Seneca notes the stoical qualities of Tiberius in Ad Polybium 15.5; yet this notice is presented as part of a speech put in the mouth of Claudius and it deals, in any case, with Tiberius' love for Drusus, the father of Claudius. The whole consolation to Polybius is riddled with praise of Claudius, so the reference to Tiberius can be viewed in some way as pleasing to Claudius (and Polybius).

Among others who have noticed the deferential treatment given to Tiberius, see Abel, K., ‘Seneca. Leben und Leistung’, ANRW 2.32.2 (Leiden, 1985), 666Google Scholar.

¹⁶ For example: Marcellus, the nephew of Augustus in 2.3; Divus Augustus in 15.2; general praise of the Caesars in 15.1.

¹⁷ Manning, C. E., On Seneca's Ad Marciam (Leiden, 1981)Google Scholar, ad locc., has noted the fact that the citation of Livia and Octavia as exemplars is unique.

¹⁸ In fact, the portrayal of Drusus by Seneca resembles quite closely that of Metilius, Marcia's son; cf. 5.4. Both died quite young.

¹⁹ This statement contrasts with the opinion expressed by later sources that Drusus was intending to ‘restore’ the Republic. See Tacitus, Annales 1.33; Suetonius, Tiberius 50.1; cf. Levick, B., Tiberius the Politician (London, 1976), p. 32CrossRefGoogle Scholar. If Suetonius is correct in saying that Tiberius betrayed Drusus' ‘Republican’ sympathies to Augustus, it is interesting that Seneca favours Tiberius by taking such pains to scotch the ‘Republican’ rumour. Tiberius is also flattered by the assumption that Drusus could have been a good princeps.

²⁰ This language is reminiscent of that used by the markedly pro-Tiberian writer Valerius Maximus 4.3.3.

²¹ Levick, B., Tiberius the Politician (London, 1976), pp. 32ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²² That Tiberius was considered to have been behind most of the trials and that of Cordus in particular can be inferred from a passage in the Annales. Under the year a.d. 37, Tacitus records that Macro, the praetorian prefect, produced evidence for the senatorial court against, among others, Lucius Arruntius (Annales 6.47). The Senate suspected that the charges had been trumped up by Macro because he hated Arruntius, and it refused to take any action because it had had no word from Tiberius about the charges. This scenario fits the conditions surrounding the earlier trial of Cordus in a.d. 25, except, as Tacitus points out, Tiberius took a great interest in the trial of Cordus, and therefore the Senate took cognizance of the charges preferred against Cordus. The difference between the two cases is precisely the interest of Tiberius.

²³ See Abel, K., Bauformen in Senecas Dialogen (Heidelberg, 1967), p. 30Google Scholar. The phraseology used by Seneca, ‘quam patienter posset suos perdere’, hints at the losses Sejanus himself was to suffer. Manning, C. E., On Seneca's Ad Marciam (Leiden, 1981), p. 85Google Scholar has noticed that the use of Tiberius here as an exemplar is rather inappropriate.

Tiberius does not appear quite so stoical in the account by Josephus, where it is recorded that Tiberius could not bear to see any of Young Drusus' friends because they reminded him too much of Drusus (Jewish Antiquities 18.146); but it was common for a writer to tailor the image of his subject to suit a particular genre. See Manning, op. cit., p. 42.

²⁴ Consider, for example, his statement about Sejanus in De Tranquillitate Animi 11.11 (c. a.d. 48–55).

²⁵ Seneca also perhaps did not shower Tiberius with flattery because he could see that Tiberius was not interested in such insincere displays of servitude. For this attitude of Tiberius, see, for example, Tacitus, Annales 4.31.

²⁶ Tacitus, Annales 4.34. Dio 57.24.3 adds that, in his ‘History’, Cordus also made some remarks disparaging the people and Senate of Rome and that he included no praise of Augustus and Tiberius. See Bauman, R. A., Impietas in Principem (Munich, 1974), pp. 101–3Google Scholar. For the possibility that the ‘History’ of Cordus, as it stood, was a covert attack on the Principate, see also Tacitus, Annals IV, edited by R. H. Martin and A. J. Woodman, p. 183.

²⁷ Rogers, R. S., ‘The Case of Cremutius Cordus’, TAPA 96 (1965), 351–9Google Scholar suggests that Cremutius was indeed charged with ‘maiestas’, but he claims that the sources have concealed the actual reason for this charge, obfuscating the issue with mention of Cremutius' works. He claims that Cordus cannot have been charged with treason for writing a laudation of Brutus and Cassius, and he suggests that Cremutius may have been accused of being involved in something more sinister. See also Bauman, R. A., Impietas in Principem (Munich, 1974), pp. 100ff.Google Scholar

²⁸ The implication that Tiberius was behind every trial is made clear by Tacitus, Annales 6.47, where the Senate refuses to act without his explicit direction. See n. 22 above. Suetonius, Tiberius 61.3 also makes no bones about the fact that it was Tiberius behind the charge.

²⁹ Annales 4.34: ‘Id perniciabile reo et Caesar truci vultu defensionem accipiens…’

³⁰ On the insufficiencies of the procedures, see Bauman, R. A., Impietas in Principem (Munich, 1974), pp. 99ff.Google Scholar, esp. n. 173. See also R. S. Rogers, art. cit. 359, who suggests that the trial must have continued and a conviction recorded. Rogers, art. cit. 354, also notes that the fact that Cremutius' books were burnt does not automatically mean that the content of his works formed the nucleus of the charge against him. There is, for example, the alleged instance of Labienus from late in the reign of Augustus, whose books were burnt. Labienus, although not seemingly on any personal charge, committed suicide (Seneca, Controversiae 10.Pr.5–7; see Cramer, F. H., ‘Bookburning and Censorship in Ancient Rome’, Journal of the History of Ideas 6 (1945), 173Google Scholar; see also Bauman, R. A., Impietas in Principem (Munich, 1974), p. 31 and p. 49Google Scholar, who has pointed out that Dio records that libellous literature was destroyed, yet not all the authors of such punished). In the class of those whose works were destroyed and who themselves were not executed, we might also include Ovid. He was relegated by Augustus, although seemingly not officially charged in any way (Ovid, Tristia 2.131–8); yet the offending book and perhaps others were removed from public libraries and probably destroyed (Ovid, Ex Ponto 1.1.5ff., cf. Tristia 3.1.59–82). These instances show that it is possible that Cordus was not condemned, yet his r books burnt.

³¹ Perhaps Tacitus has been unduly influenced by the fates of two contemporaries of his, who wrote accounts of the deaths of Thrasea Paetus and Helvidius Priscus. Both Arulenus Rusticus and Herennius Senecio were capitally condemned and their works publicly burnt (Tacitus, Agricola 2). I owe this reference to Professor A. B. Bosworth.

³² Bauman, R. A., Impietas in Principem (Munich, 1974), p. 31Google Scholar, feels that the suicide of Cordus prevented a conviction. In other such cases, however, despite the incapacity or death of an accused, the trial usually continued and a conviction was registered. The following cases of ‘maiestas’ recorded by Tacitus show us that, in those instances where the accused died, the trial most often continued after the death of the defendant and a conviction ensued. It would seem that suicide indicated quite clearly to the court that the accused thought himself guilty. One impression conveyed by Tacitus is that most of the men in the following cases seemed to have believed that their friendship with Tiberius would help them escape the charges; that when this help was not forthcoming and they thought that they would suffer conviction in any case, they committed suicide.

The cases are those of: Marcus Scribonius Libo Drusus in a.d. 16 (Tacitus, Annales 2.27–32; Dio 57.15.4–5. See Rogers, R. S., Criminal Trials and Criminal Legislation under Tiberius (Connecticut, 1935), pp. 12–20)Google Scholar; Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso in a.d. 20 (Tacitus, Annales 3.10–19). On this case see Rogers, op. cit., pp. 38–51); Gaius Silius (Tacitus, Annales 4.18–20); see Rogers, op. cit., pp. 75–8. The year a.d. 24 also produced the case of Calpurnius Piso, accused of ‘maiestas’. He died but the trial clearly did not continue (cf. Tacitus, Annales 4.21); Marcus Caecilius Cornutus, implicated in the treason of Vibius Serenus in a.d. 24 and committing suicide during the trial (Tacitus, Annales 4.28, 4.30). It would seem that only one of the five, Calpurnius Piso, who may have died of natural causes in any case (and therefore had not made his guilt manifest by suicide) possibly escaped posthumous conviction. Tacitus does not claim that any of these five men were innocent of crime, but sometimes he suggests that they were not necessarily guilty of the capital offence, of ‘maiestas’.

Four of the five men cited as having committed suicide during their trials, Libo Drusus, Gnaeus Piso, Gaius Silius and Calpurnius Piso, can be seen to have enjoyed the particular friendship or favour of Tiberius at some time. This is noticeably so with Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso (Tacitus, Annales 3.12, cf. 3.16). I would suggest that Cordus too had been a particular friend of Tiberius (see n. 55 below).

³³ Tiberius 61.3: ‘Omne crimen pro capitali receptum, etiam paucorum simpliciumque verborum…obiectum et historico, quod Brutum Cassiumque ultimos Romanorum dixisset: animadversum statim in auctores scriptaque abolita, quamvis probarentur ante aliquot annos etiam Augusto audiente recitata’. Suetonius implies that this ‘historicus’, obviously Cordus, was capitally condemned, but his account is certainly abbreviated and we should perhaps not put much store in what is, after all, only an implication.

³⁴ Tacitus states specifically that this man was one of the accusers prompted by Sejanus to bring Cordus to trial. Pinarius Natta, we know, from Seneca, Epistulae 122.10–13, was almost certainly alive towards the end of the reign of Tiberius. He had obviously survived his association with Sejanus, presumably because he was rich, powerful and well-connected, and Seneca's reticence about Natta's involvement in Cremutius' trial makes more sense if the Ad Marciam dates to this same period, towards the end of Tiberius' reign, when all and sundry were trying to forget their links with Sejanus. (See Griffin, M. T., Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics (Oxford, 1976), pp. 48ffGoogle Scholar. Satrius Secundus, the other accuser mentioned both by Tacitus and Seneca, did not long outlive Sejanus (Tacitus, Annales 6.8, 6.47. Cf. Griffin, op. cit., p. 48). It is interesting that Seneca mentions only Satrius Secundus, dead shortly after October 31, but does not mention Natta by name, a man who was still socially active at the end of Tiberius' reign.

³⁵ Seneca, Ad Marciam De Consolatione 22.4. See also Dio 57.24.2–4. The suggestion of Seneca is that Cremutius Cordus almost voluntarily brought down upon himself the wrath of Sejanus because he could not stand the fact that he and others of like mind (‘cervices nostras’) were being oppressed by the prefect.

On the rebuilding of the theatre, see Velleius Paterculus 2.130.1; Tacitus, Annales 3.72, 6.45.

³⁶ In the lead up to the description of the trial of Cordus, Tacitus tells us what he has been and will be describing. See Annales 4.33: ‘nos saeva iussa, continuas accusationes, fallaces amicitias, perniciem innocentium et easdem exitii causas coniungimus, obvia rerum similitudine et satietate’. Cordus is surely one of these ‘innocentes’.

³⁷ Cf. Rogers, R. S., TAPA 96 (1965), 351–9Google Scholar, who states that Cordus must have been charged with something more than compiling histories unfavourable to the Principate.

³⁸ Suetonius, Tiberius 61.3 does not even mention Sejanus but lays the blame fairly and squarely upon Tiberius. Dio 57.24.2–3 does not mention Tiberius, however, but his account survives only in an excerpted form.

³⁹ The presentation of the material in these paragraphs by Seneca seems to imply that, during the ascendancy of Sejanus alone, piety was forbidden and that after his death times changed. Perhaps it was perfectly clear to the ancient reader that Seneca was implying that the whole of the regime of Tiberius had been oppressive, but if so, it is curious that he is so loose here and in these vital opening passages does not lay the blame for the previous state of affairs upon Tiberius. Tacitus has been quick to note that, after the fall of Sejanus, the bad times continued since kith and kin were forbidden to mourn those convicted of ‘maiestas’ (Annales 6.10, 6.19; cf. Rogers, R. S., Criminal Trials and Criminal Legislation under Tiberius (Connecticut, 1935), p. 140Google Scholar).

⁴⁰ Seneca hedges around the issue of the works of Cordus. In 1.3, Cordus is said to have been punished because of his ‘ingenium’; and his books were written ‘sanguine suo’ etc. In 22.4ff., the books are not mentioned. They are alluded to again in 26.3, cf. 26.5. (Contra Manning, C. E., On Seneca's Ad Marciam (Leiden, 1981), ad locc.)Google Scholar

⁴¹ It must have been quite a considerable amount of time, long enough for the purpose of Cordus in starving himself to death to become obvious to his accusers and to others. Seneca intimates that Cordus starved himself to death in about 8 days (22.6).

Periods given over to trials of ‘maiestas’ were flexible. The trial of Libo Drusus in a.d. 16 seems to have been over fairly quickly, as the wording of Tacitus suggests (Annales 4.30); cf. Dio 57.15.5. The trial of Piso and his family in a.d. 20 was divided thus: prosecution, two days; sixday break; defence, three days (Tacitus, Annales 3.13). This trial, however, dealt with three accused, arraigned on a number of charges. The trial of Cordus could not possibly have been given this much time and may also have been over quickly, since Cordus offered little in the way of a defence.

⁴² Tacitus, Annales 6.47.

⁴³ See n. 32.

⁴⁴ There is a possibility that Seneca (Ad Marciam 22.7) intends Tiberius to be understood as present at the ‘consulum tribunalia’, but the obscurity of the allusion makes Seneca's failure to mention the emperor participating in the proceedings even more outstanding.

⁴⁵ See, for example, Rogers, R S., TAPA 96 (1965), 355Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Rogers, art. cit. 355–9, suggests that Tacitus is also lying. Cf. Bauman, R. A., Impietas in Principem (Munich, 1974), pp. 99ffGoogle Scholar. The latter notes that Tacitus was in a very good position to give a professional opinion on the trial of Cremutius Cordus; that is, the trial proceedings described in the Annales may well be fictitious, but Cordus is made to give the type of defence that should have got him off.

There may have been a trial in which an argument was put forward, perhaps one similar to that put in the mouth of Cordus by Tacitus; Cordus may even have been found not guilty, although a verdict of guilty seems more likely since his suicide surely implied his guilt. To give full effect to his account, Tacitus may have placed the trial before the death of Cordus, although the defendant may have actually committed suicide without defending himself, as Seneca makes clear; then his case may have been heard and a verdict pronounced; the Senate, out of deference to Sejanus alone and not because Cordus was convicted, may have ordered that Cordus' books be burnt.

⁴⁷ See n. 32. Cf. Rogers, R. S., TAPA 96 (1965), 359Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Tacitus claims that Tiberius was still concerned about his reputation in a.d. 33 (Anncdes 6.26,6.29, cf. 6.38,6.45). The fact that Tiberius brought out an autobiography late in his life also suggests that he was still seriously concerned about his reputation (Suetonius, Tiberius 61.1).

⁴⁹ It seems possible that Cordus had once been a friend, or at least a close acquaintance, of Tiberius. It is said that Cordus had read his ‘History’ to Augustus (Suetonius, Tiberius 61.3; Dio 57.24.3), which suggests that Cordus was on friendly terms with some members of the imperial house during the lifetime of Augustus. Seneca himself claims that Cordus' daughter Marcia and Livia, the wife of Augustus and mother of Tiberius, were close (Ad Marciam 41).

In the trials listed in n. 32, there is a common factor. Most of the men on trial for ‘maiestas’ who committed suicide were at one time close to Tiberius. These are the type of men who would commit suicide, obviously to anticipate a sure conviction, but also as a reproach to the emperor for his public betrayal of their friendship, e.g. Tacitus, Annales 3.15. Consider also the slow manner of death used by Cordus. It was one that might easily have allowed for Tiberius' interruption, and there is another good example of precisely such behaviour recorded by Tacitus. An old ‘amicus’ of Tiberius, barred from the presence of the emperor, hoped that his life would be saved by imperial intervention, and so made his first attempt at suicide fail pathetically, clearly allowing time for Tiberius to forgive him (Tacitus, Annales 6.9). It is not impossible that Tiberius and Cordus had been ‘amici’ and Tiberius might have later annulled the conviction against Cordus when it was shown that Sejanus had corruptly caused his downfall.

⁵⁰ Such terminology surely reflects that used by Tiberius himself in his autobiography, cf. Suetonius, Tiberius 61.1. On the use of the term ‘parricida’ and its cognates to describe an attempt on the life of the emperor, particularly Tiberius, see, for example, Valerius Maximus 9.11. ext. 4.

⁵¹ Agrippina, who committed suicide in a.d. 33, is said to have postponed killing herself for two years after the fall of Sejanus, because it was thought possible that Tiberius might reverse the decision on her exile (Tacitus, Annales 6.25). If it was thought that Tiberius could at any moment have relented in the case of Agrippina, surely it is possible that Tiberius might have allowed Marcia to re-publish the works of her father who could have been shown to have suffered so unjustly at the hands of Sejanus. Perhaps it was precisely the vengeance that Tiberius wreaked on the associates of Sejanus and his reversal of irregular judicial decisions, such as that of Cordus, that kept Agrippina alive for so long.

⁵² It is possible that Seneca wrote the Ad Marciam, not only to console Marcia, but also to curry favour with Tiberius. He may have been on the lookout for a quaestorship. Griffin, M. T., Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics (Oxford, 1976), pp. 43–56Google Scholar, notes that Seneca was in the Senate by 39, and she suggests that he probably held his quaestorship late in the reign of Tiberius.

⁵³ Dio 58.12.3–4, dealing with the downfall of Sejanus, suggests that such action on the part of the Senate may have taken place even without the advice of the princeps.

⁵⁴ Seneca, Ad Marciam De Consolatione 4.1.

⁵⁵ Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 10.1.104: ‘habet amatores nee inmerito Cremuti libertas, quanquam circumcisis quae dixisse ei nocuerat. Sed elatum abunde spiritum et audaces sententias deprehendas etiam in his quae manent.’ Quintilian knew that the works of Cordus had been edited, implying that some unedited versions had got into circulation; or perhaps he was simply aware of the fact of censorship. (See also Dio 57.24.3–4.)

⁵⁶ Tiberius at times showed a great deal of toleration where libels against him on a personal level were evident. He is said to have endured the posthumous insults of Fulcinius Trio, recorded in Tacitus, Annales 6.38. Tacitus may have overlooked the instance of Cordus.

⁵⁷ Tacitus, Annales 4.29.1–3, cf. 4.13.2.

⁵⁸ Rogers, op. cit., p. 108 dates the trial of Curtius Atticus to a.d. 30.

⁵⁹ See n. 49.

⁶⁰ Suetonius, Gaius 16.1: ‘Titi Labieni, Cordi Cremuti, Cassi Severi scripta senatus consultis abolita requiri et esse in manibus lectitarique permisit, “quando maxime sua interesse ut facta quaeque posteris tradantur”.’

⁶¹ Suetonius, Tiberius 58. Suetonius has mistakenly assumed that the only charge against Scaurus arose simply from the tragedy he had written. Other sources assure us that Scaurus was prosecuted for more serious charges, for adultery with Livilla and for magic (Tacitus, Annales 6.2; cf. Dio 58.24.6). On Scaurus, see Bauman, R. A., Impietas in Principem (Munich, 1974), pp. 126–8.Google Scholar

⁶² Suetonius, Tiberius 61.3.

⁶³ ‘Statuae quidam Augusti caput dempserat, ut alterius imponeret; acta res in senatu et, quia ambigebatur, per tormenta quaesita est. Damnato reo paulatim genus calumniae eo processit, ut haec quoque capitalia essent.’

⁶⁴ See Tacitus, Annales 1.74.

⁶⁵ Rogers, R. A., Criminal Trials and Criminal Legislation under Tiberius (Connecticut, 1935), pp. 172–3Google Scholar, allows for this possibility but denies that the matter can be historical in this case. He points to Tiberius' attitude to such matters in general and to the case of Granius Marcellus in particular. See also Bauman, R. A., Impietas in Principem (Munich, 1974), pp. 79–80Google Scholar (esp. n. 61).

⁶⁶ Bauman, op. cit., p. 80.

⁶⁷ Bauman, op. cit., pp. 80–1; cf. Rogers, R. S., Criminal Trials and Criminal Legislation under Tiberius (Connecticut, 1935), pp. 171–2.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Tacitus, Annales 4.34–5; Suetonius, Tiberius 61.3; Dio 57.24.1–4.

⁶⁹ See Bauman, op. cit., pp. 27–31.

⁷⁰ Tacitus, Annales 4.21. See Rogers, op. cit., pp. 79–80.

⁷¹ There is also the possibility that the works of Cremutius Cordus were re-published during the reign of Tiberius but edited with their unfavourable references to the principate taken out, as Quintilian may imply (see n. 55). Suetonius may not have noticed this earlier re-publication, and his reference, in fact, implies that the works were re-published without hindrance or censorship. He may, therefore, be correct in saying that Cordus' works were re-published (in toto) under Gaius, but edited forms of the same works may have been put back into circulation under Tiberius.

⁷² Griffin, M. T., Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics (Oxford, 1976), pp. 48ffGoogle Scholar. Abel, K., ‘Seneca. Leben und Leistung’, ANRW 2.32.2 (Leiden, 1985), 665–6.Google Scholar