Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T11:42:03.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of the Senate in the Augustan Regime

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

P. A. Brunt
P. A. Brunt
Affiliation:
Brasenose College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Discussions of the constitution of the Principate are usually focused on the powers of the emperor, and relatively little attention is given to the role of the senate; by exception much has been written on its jurisdiction, with which I shall not be concerned. Despite his theory of a dyarchy of emperor and senate, which I do not wish to revive, Mommsen, partly because he devoted separate volumes to each, did I not exhibit the extent to which Augustus and Tiberius at least worked through the senate, and on occasions attributed to them legal powers to act by their own authority, when in reality (as I shall argue) they caused the senate to take action as the only proper means of effecting their wishes. More recently, F. de Martino in his admirable account of the Principate dedicates only one out of twenty-seven chapters to the composition, functions and procedure of the senate. For Syme it was simply an ‘organ that advertised or confirmed the decisions of the government’. This description does not bring out the truth that it was performing a role essential to Augustus' design. For though in effect he founded a monarchy, he commonly thought it expedient on necessary obtain for his measures senatorial approval. That this was the practice of Tiberius in his early years is clearly attested, and some suppose that he behaved in an entirely different manner from Augustus. This view seems to be mistaken, and the mistake is of some consequence.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , December 1984 , pp. 423 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 de Martino, F., Storia della costituzione rom. 2 4, 1974, ch. XXIIGoogle Scholar; Syme, R., Roman Revolution (henceforth RR) 406 fGoogle Scholar. In general I cite modern discussions only when they provide the evidence on matters which cannot or need not be fully examined here. St.R = Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrechf.3 Suetonius with no further indication = his life of Augustus. I am indebted for some useful comments to Miss S. Martin.

2 Brunt, , Biblioteca di Labeo 6 (1982), 236 ffGoogle Scholar.

3 Tiberius: Tac, . Ann. 4. 6. 2Google Scholar; 15. 2; Suet, . Tib. 30Google Scholar; Dio 57 7. 2. ‘Dominus’: Suet. 53; Dio 55. 12. 2 (Aug.); Ann. 2. 87; Suet, . Tib. 27Google Scholar; Dio 57. 8. 1 f. Tiberius' speech, Suet, . Tib. 29Google Scholar, cf. Cic, . Sest. 137Google Scholar. Maiestas: Suet, . Tib. 30Google Scholar; cf. Veil. 2. 89. 3; 126. 2; and other texts cited by Levick, B., JRS 73 (1983), 97 ffGoogle Scholar. on v. 6 of the Larinum s.c. of A.D. 19; cf. Brunt, , JRS 51 (1961), 76Google Scholar on senatorial privileges. Extension of law of maiestas; Ann. 1. 72. 3; Tiberius treated as binding a senatus consultum surely passed ‘auctore Augusto’ which condemned Severus, Cassius (Ann. 4. 23. 3)Google Scholar with retroactive effect.

4 Tiberius 1972, 247 f.; Syme, , RR 418Google Scholar; Tacitus 427 f. had adumbrated the theory of Tiberius' Republicanism, on which Seager expatiates.

5 Ann. 1. 12. 1, cf. Suet, . Tib. 25. 2Google Scholar; Dio 57. 2. 4. Augustus' memorandum (Dio 56. 33) also allegedly included the ‘consilium coercendi intra terminos imperii’ of Ann. 1. 11.4, which does not, however, unambiguously imply that the advice was embodied in writing: Tacitus may mean that Tiberius purported to be conveying advice he had received orally; in that case it seems unlikely that this was the only such injunction that he mentioned, and Dio may have wrongly supposed that he was reading the others he reports from a document additional to the three that Augustus certainly left, to be read in the senate (Suet, . Aug. 101Google Scholar). It then becomes conceivable that Tiberius imputed to Augustus policies that he had alone formulated, though I see no reason to suspect this, and would still think it significant that he chose to shelter under his predecessor's authority.

6 For diverse views see Downey, G., ANRW ii, 2, (1975), 106 ff.Google Scholar; and Seager ch. III; Levick, B., Tiberius the Politician (1976), chs III–VGoogle Scholar.

7 Ann. 4. 37. 3 (cf. 1. 77. 3); 3. 6. 2; Dio 57. 8. 4 with Ann. 4. 42. 3; Strabo 6. 4. 2. On the reliability of Tacitus' reports of Tiberius' speeches see Syme, Tacitus, App. 39. Downey 114 fails to read the clear message of Tacitus and invokes less secure inferences from the coinage to illustrate Tiberius' loyalty to Augustan precedents. See nn. 3, 5, 33, 62; for defence policy, Ann. 2. 26; 6. 32. 1; Agr. 13. 2; for other matters 1. 14. 4; 54. 2; 77. 3; 2. 59. 2; 3. 63 (cf. Suet, . Aug. 65. 2Google Scholar; Dio 54. 29. 6); 18. 1; 29. 2; 56. 3; 68. 1; 71. 2; 74. 4; Tacitus' references to Augustan precedents may be drawn from Tiberius' utterances. On Drusus' death Tiberius spoke of abdication (4. 9); so too Augustus ‘non desit quietem sibi precari et vacationem a re publica petere’, at least once in a letter to the senate (Sen, . de brev. vitae 4. 2 fGoogle Scholar). Tiberius' solution to the credit crisis of A.D. 33 – lending money free of interest for three years (Ann. 6. 23) – was perhaps suggested by such loans made by Augustus in c. A.D. 3 (Dio/Zonaras 55. 12. 3 a). Cf. also text to n. 67.

8 See e.g. ep. 3. 20. 12; 4. 12. 3; 4. 25. 5; 5. 13. 6–8; a trial extending over three days as ‘pulchrum et antiquum’ (2. 11. 18; cf. Paneg. 76). Cf. Tac, . Ann. 13. 49Google Scholar.

9 Suet, . Tib. 26–33Google Scholar (the context shows that he means ‘autocrat’ by ‘principem’ in 33. 1); cf. Aug. 35; 51; 54.6. Dio on Augustus as monarch: 52.41. 1; 53. 17. 1; 56. 39. 5, but for consultation of senate see n. 106. Maecenas' speech, 52. 31. 1 and 32. 2; Tiberius' eulogy, 56. 40. 3 and 41. 3; contrast with Tiberius, 56. 43. 4–45. 1.

10 See nn. 50, 54, 62, 66 f., 79, 84 (Tacitus), 54, 55 (Dio) with text.

11 53. 21. 3–6. In the context ἒκρινε hardly refers to judicial business (Kunkel, W., Kl. Schr. 275 n. 11)Google Scholar. Cf. 55. 3–4. 1; 25. 4; 56. 28. 5.

12 52. 42. 5; cf. 49. 43. 6, but see RG 2. 1; Tac, . Ann. 11. 25Google Scholar.

13 See briefly Brunt, and Moore, on RG 6. 1Google Scholar.

14 Cf. Brunt, , Italian Manpower 560Google Scholar.

15 Riccobono, , Acta Divi Augusti (1945), 201 fGoogle Scholar. (Suet. 40. 1; Pliny, , NH 33. 32Google Scholar; Quint, . Inst. 3. 6. 18 f.Google Scholar), but the law might be Caesarian. Dio dates two changes to 26 B.C. (53. 25. 1) and A.D. 5 (55. 22. 4), but the former (cf. Suet. 44. 1), and probably both, were made by s.c. alone.

16 Suet. 31. 3; 36; Dio 54. 18. 3; Riccobono (n. 15) 142 ff.

17 Dio 54. 2. 3; Augustus' sumptuary law (Suet. 34; Gell. 2. 14. 4; perhaps Dio 54. 16 under 18 B.C.) is surely later. Cf. Ann. 2. 33; 3. 52. 5; Suet, . Tib. 34Google Scholar for senatorial debates on sumptuary rules under Tiberius: Dio 57. 15. 1 makes him issue commands.

18 Dio 54. 3. 6, too early for the judiciary laws (n. 16).

19 Dio 54. 18. 2; cf. the debate and decrees under Claudius, Ann. 11. 5–7.

20 Dio 55. 5. 3. Augustus' law on ambitus seems to date to 18 (54. 16. 1; cf. Suet. 34; Riccobono [n. 15] 140).

21 Dio 55. 5. 4. Tacitus wrongly regarded Tiberius' application of the rule as an innovation (Ann. 2. 30. 3; cf. 3. 67. 3).

22 Dio 55. 10. 1. Cf. Italian Manpower 382.

23 Dio 56. 25. 5.

24 Dio 56. 25. 7. This modified an earlier s.c. (Suet. 43. 3).

25 Suet, . Tib. 36Google Scholar; Dio 57. 15. 7. Tacitus reports a s.c. (Ann. 2. 32. 3); cf. Ulpian, , Collatio 15. 2. 1Google Scholar.

26 Suet, Tib. 33Google Scholar, but cf. Ann. 2. 85.1; Papinian, , Dig. 48. 5. 11 (10). 2Google Scholar, and the s.c. discovered at Larinum (see n. 3).

27 Suet, . Tib. 33Google Scholar, but cf. Ann. 2. 85. 4.

28 Dio 53. 25. 1 (cf. n. 15); 54. 17. 3 and 26. 3 (census fixed in 18; cf. Suet. 41. 1); 54. 30. 1 (religious ceremonial); 54. 35. 1; 55. 3 with 4. 1 (acknowledging decrees) and 26. 1 (rules on quorum etc.). See also Suet. 35. 3 and 44 (cf. n. 15).

29 Suet. 35. 3; Dio 53. 21. 4 f. (not necessarily implying 27 B.C. as the date); 56. 28. 2; EJ 311 V (cf. also Suet, . Tib. 35Google Scholar for another change in the probouleutic committee). The true consilium principis consisted of such advisers as the emperor chose on each occasion to consult, including Equites like Maecenas or Sallustius Crispus, (Ann. 1. 6. 3; 3. 30)Google Scholar.

30 Dio 53. 21. 6; cf. Suet. 40. 2.

31 Levick, B., Historia 16 (1967), 209 ffGoogle Scholar.

32 EJ 94a and 94b; cf. de Martino (n. 1), ch. XXIII with bibliography; add Panni, M., Comitia e Senato (1974)Google Scholar; Holladay, A. J., Latomus 37 (1978), 874 ffGoogle Scholar. I adhere to the view of the documents expressed in JRS 51 (1961), 71 ff.Google Scholar, except that ‘solent’ in EJ 94a v. 6 excludes Syme's mode of reconciling them with Annals 1. 15; this leaves that proposed by A. H. M. Jones as the necessary solution. On the drafting as s.c. cf. Brunt, , JRS 67 (1977), 95Google Scholar.

33 However, Vell. 2. 124. 3, ‘ordinatio comitiorum quam manu sua scriptam divus Augustus reliquerat’, need refer only to Augustus' list of commendati; cf. Pliny, , Paneg. 72. 1Google Scholar.

34 Dio 54. 10. 2; 56. 34; cf. St.R 2, 916 with 909, and contra, Brunt, , JRS 67, (1977), 114Google Scholar.

35 55. 6. 5; 55. 22. 1; 58. 20. 1 f. Mommsen himself (also citing Dig. 1. 2. 2. 47) thought that here Dio referred only ‘to factual influence on the elections’ (2. 923 n. 1).

36 Dio 53. 28. 3; 54. 19. 6; 56. 17. 3 with 18. 1; Tac, . Ann. 3. 29Google Scholar.

37 RG 14; ILS 139; EJ 94a (cf. Ann. 2. 83); 94b (cf. Ann. 4. 9).

38 Dio 53. 30. 6; 54. 10. 4; 55. 9. 4; 10. 6.

39 So Mommsen, , St.R 2. 215 n. 3Google Scholar, conjecturing a s.c.

40 53. 32. 2 (cf. Veil. 2. 89). In A.D. 11 Augustus allowed the election of 16 (56. 25. 4, cf. Dig. 1. 2. 2. 32); for these and later variations cf. St. R 2. 202 f.

41 54. 2. 1; cf. Suet. 40 (‘creavit’).

42 Brunt, , JRS 67 (1977), n. 5Google Scholar.

43 St.R 2. 257 n. 3.

44 ILS 915; 942. A contemporary does no more than record three legateships of a proconsul, ILS 943. Cf. St.R 2. 250.

45 Dio 53. 14. 2. But cf. 12. 7. f., 13. 2, for other rules later than 27 B.C. In 16. 1 and 18. 4 Dio shows that he did not mean to date all the features of the system described in 12–19 to that year.

46 Pace Syme, , RR 330Google Scholar; 395. Lollius, M. (cos. 21)Google Scholar, proconsul of Macedon c. 19–18, Nerva, P. Silius (cos. 20)Google Scholar, proconsul of Illyricum c. 17–16, and Vinicius, M. (cos. suff. 19)Google Scholar, if proconsul of Illyricum c. 14–13, were presumably appointed extra sortem, cf. RR 329.

47 Brunt, , JRS 67 (1977), 96 fGoogle Scholar.

48 Ann. 1.76.2.

49 RG 27. 1 (cf. Brunt, , JRS 56 [1966], 90 f.Google Scholar); 30. 1; ILS 918.

50 Ann. 2. 42–43. 1; cf. Dio 57. 17. 3–7.

51 Dio 53. 14. 2; cf. Suet. 36; nn. 45–46.

52 JRS 56 (1966), 156 ffGoogle Scholar.

53 53. 15. 4. See Millar, F., The Emperor and the Roman World 313 ffGoogle Scholar.

54 Annals 4. 36. 2 (cf. Dio 57. 24. 6, vague on procedure; Suet, . Tib. 47Google Scholar, making Tiberius alone responsible); 12. 58 (cf. Koestermannarf ad loc.). Rhodes' deprivation of liberty in 44 is in a senatorial context in Dio 60. 24. 4. There is a difficulty: Suet, . Nero 7Google Scholar says that Nero pleaded for the Rhodians in Greek before Claudius as consul sc., in 51, and though Suetonius' implied date is evidently wrong, Nero's patronage of Rhodes at this time is confirmed (IG 12. 1. 2); we may perhaps think of preliminary (and in fact decisive) proceedings before the emperor.

55 Sherk, R., Roman Documents from the Greek East (1969), p. 149, from col. cGoogle Scholar.

56 See Marsh, F. B., Reign of Tiberius (1931), 272 ffGoogle Scholar. on this habit of Suetonius.

57 Dio 56. 25. 6. Cf. the decree of Nero's reign promoted by Paetus, Thrasea, Ann. 15. 20–2Google Scholar.

58 Dio 53. 26. 1; 53. 33. 1; 55. 33. 5; 56. 25. 7; Suet, . Tib. 30Google Scholar.

59 54. 9. 1; cf. 54. 8. 3 f.

60 e.g. RG 4. 2; ILS 918; 921 etc.; St.R 2. 854; 885; 3. 1108.

61 Ann. 1. 52. 2; 2. 43. 1 (whence 2. 1–4); 44. 2 (note ‘praetendebantur’); 63. 3; 88; 3. 47. 1. Contrast St.R 2. 956 f.

62 Suet, Tib. 30Google Scholar; Ann. 1. 25. 3; 26. 3; 39; 52. 3; 78. 2, on which see St.R 2. 956, cf. Suet. 49. 2; Dio 54. 25. 5 f.; 55.23. 1.

63 Dio 59. 9. 4 (cf. Suet, . Gaius 16. 1Google Scholar); cf. 53. 30. 2 (23 B.C.); 56. 33 (A.D. 14; cf. Ann. 1. 11. 4; Suet. 101).

64 St.R 2. 1014 (for the Lex Antonia Broughton, MRR 2. 316 gives references); but cf. Dio 55. 25; 56. 28. 4–6; Macer, wrote two books ‘ad legem vicensimam hereditatium’ (Dig. 2. 15. 13; 11. 7. 37 pr.)Google Scholar.

65 Dio 55. 31. 4; it was evidently received by the aerarium Saturni (cf. n. 85).

66 Annals 1. 78. 2; 2. 42. 4 (cf. St.R 2. 1014 n. 3 on problems which do not affect my argument here).

67 Annals 2. 42. 5; 47, with which compare for Augustus' liberality RG Appendix 4; Dio 54. 30. 3, and for the senate's role in his time Suet, Tib. 8Google Scholar; for other instances see Annals 4. 13. 1; 12. 61. 1; 62 f.; cf. 58. 2, with n. 54.

68 Mommsen, also inferred from Annals 13. 51Google Scholar that the emperor could by edict regulate the administration of taxes in Italy, in this case the portoria. Here we may note:(a) an inference from Nero's practice to that of Augustus may not be legitimate; (b) if the manuscript of 13. 50. 2 is sound (which I myself doubt) there was a prior debate in the senate: an edict could certainly give effect and publicity to a s.c.; (c) administration was in any event a magisterial function, though Nero was apparently entrenching on praetorian responsibility; cf. Dig. 39. 4. 1 pr. I do not doubt that in the end the emperor assumed absolute control; cf. for instance ILS 309 with Dessau's notes (Hadrian).

69 Aerarium Saturni: Suet. 36; Dio 53. 2. 1 and 32. 2; Tac, . Annals 13. 28 fGoogle Scholar. For Claudius cf. Suet. Cl. 24. 4; Dio 60. 24. 1–3. Note FIRA I2 no. 40 III, cf. n. 73. Aerarium militare: RG 17; Suet. 49; Dio 55. 25. 1–3.

70 Dion. Hal. 4. 62. 6; Lact. Div. Inst. 1. 6. 14.

71 The evidence is conveniently assembled in EJ pp. 44 ff.

72 St. R 3. 339.

73 Mommsen, , Ges. Schr. 8. 587 ff.Google Scholar, based on (a) s.c. from a later celebration which refers (with virtually certain supplementation) to that authorizing the games in 17 (FIRA I2 40. III); (b) Inscr. ltal. 13. 1, pp. 62–3 (A.D. 88); (c) CIL 6. 32326, 5–48 (A.D. 204). The extant fragments of the acta ludorum for 17 are from supplemental decrees (FIRA I2 40. I–II).

74 Wissowa, G., Religion u. Kultus der Römer 2 (1912), 406 ffGoogle Scholar.

75 St.R 2. 618 ff.; 3. 1050.

76 Suet. 29. 5; cf. e.g. ILS 886; Dio 54. 25. 2.

77 Dio 55. 10. 6; cf. St.R 2. 621 n. 1.

78 Ann. 1. 10; 1. 54. 1; Dio 56. 46 etc.

79 Ann. 1. 78. 1;4. 15. 3; 4. 37.

80 St.R 2. 950, citing Suet, . Tib. 30Google Scholar; Tac, . Hist. 4. 9 (Helvidius)Google Scholar. But see RG 20. 4 f.; ILS 84 (no matter that 9371 says simply ‘viam Aemiliam…muniendam curavit’). Some roads were rebuilt at public cost, Dio 53. 22. 2.

81 Frontinus, , de aquis 98 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Suet. 37; Dio 54. 1.4 and 54. 17. 1; cf. ILS index pp. 359; 388 (praefecti frumento dando); 54. 8. 4; ILS 915, but cf. index pp. 359 f. (curatores viarum;) note the démarche on neglect of the roads made by Cn. Domitius Corbulo in A.D. 21, inset by Tacitus, , Ann. 3. 21. 5Google Scholar amongst senatorial proceedings; cf. Dio 59. 15. 3, explicit as to the senate. Corbulo would hardly have ventured to assail imperial nominees.

82 ILS 5746; 5923 f.; 5937; cf. 5922 (Rep.), but see also 5936; 5938 (‘ex s.c’ omitted). Veil. 2. 92. 2; Ovid, , ex Ponto 4. 5. 19 f.Google Scholar; 9. 43–6 show consuls letting public contracts and exercising censorial jurisdiction in cases arising from them in 19 B.C., A.D. 14 and 16, as in the 70s (Cic, . Verr. ii 1. 50 ff.Google Scholar; cf. St.R 2. 461–3).

83 ILS 5939–41, but cf. 942.

84 Dio 57. 14. 8; cf. Tac, . Ann. 1. 76 and 79Google Scholar; EJ 296; ILS 5923d; 5924d; 5925; from Claudius' time the curatores acted ‘ex auctoritate principis’, 5926–5931. Republican censors (5922a–c) and Augustan consuls (5923a–d), or Augustus himself (5924a–d), had hitherto done the work ‘ex s.c.’.

85 Dio 53. 24. 6; 54. 2. 4; 55. 8. 6 f.; 26. 4 (24. 9–27. 5 seems to be from acta). No weight can be given to statements made by Strabo (5. 3. 7) and Paul, (Dig. 1. 15. 1–3)Google Scholar that Augustus simply decided to take charge; the judicial powers of the prefect may also have been acquired or enlarged later. Suetonius simply ascribes all successive measures to Augustus (30). New tax: n. 62.

86 Dio 55. 26. 2 and 31. 4; cf. Tac, . Ann. 1. 7. 2Google Scholar; 3. 54. 4 f.

87 E.g. in the same s.c. of 11 B.C. (Frontinus, , de aquis 100Google Scholar).

88 St.R 1. 663 (cf. 3. 557), followed by Ensslin (RE 22. 1258) and others.

89 Cadoux, T. J., JRS 49 (1959), 155Google Scholar, though I do not follow him in doubting imperial appointment (Suet, . Tib. 42. 1Google Scholar; Dig. 1. 12. 1. 4).

90 Tac, . Ann. 6. 11. 4Google Scholar; Sen, . Apoc. 10. 2Google Scholar; Jerome, , ad ann. Abraham 1991Google Scholar.

91 Tac, . Ann. 6. 11Google Scholar; cf. Dio 54. 19. 6; on the appointment of L. Calpurnius Piso by Augustus or Tiberius see PIR C. 289 at p. 64.

92 Brunt, , JRS 67 (1977), 98Google Scholar.

93 Festus 262 L; ILS 910; Dio 54. 26. 7; St.R 2. 608–10.

94 RE 22. 13. 5ff. (Ensslin).

95 Livy 4. 12. 8; cf. St.R 2. 672 n. 1.

96 Chilver, G. E. F., AJP 70 (1949), 7 ff.Google Scholar; Mommsen misunderstood this (St.R. 2. 673).

96 Millar does not, I think, note his case as an exception in JRS 56 (1966), 156 ff.Google Scholar, nor in The Emperor and the Roman World.

98 RG 8. 2; Suet. 35; Dio 52.42; 54. 13 f.; 54. 26. 5; 54. 35. 1; 55. 13. 3, on which see A. H. M. Jones, in Rom. Government and Law Ch. II. I do not accept the view of Syme, , RR 349Google Scholar (cf. his index for Silius and Furnius) on the lectio of 28. Syme 358 ff. illustrates Claudius' remark (ILS 212. II. 1 ff.). Cf. also Jones ch. III.

99 Wickert, L., RE 22. 2029 ff. (list: 2014 ff.)Google Scholar.

100 Jones (n. 95) somewhat underrates Augustus' influence (ch. III); cf. Annals 1. 15. 1. Tiberius: 1. 81; 4. 6. 2; cf. ILS 9483 (Favonius, a man probably known to us under some other name; cf. Sulpicius Quirinius for a man with two gentilicia); Dio 58. 20 (concerning Tiberius' later years).

101 Brunt, , JRS 51 (1961), 73 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Annals 4. 6. 1.

102 Annals 1. 2. 1; 8. 4; 2. 32. 1 f.; 3. 47. 3 (cf. 4. 66. 2); 3. 57. 1; 3. 65; 4. 74. 4 f.; cf. Syme, , Tacitus 573 fGoogle Scholar.

103 PIR 2 A 760 (cf Badian, E., Polis and Imperium, St. in honour of E. T. Salmon, ed. Judge, E. A. [1974,] 152Google Scholar), esp. Annals 3. 75. (The difficulty in Tacitus' statement on the consulship of Ateius Capito, cf. Syme, , Tacitus 761Google Scholar, is resolved if Zosimus 2. 4. 2 refers to a treatise in which he ‘expounded’ the Secular Games post eventum.)

104 Aug. 51, 54–6; Tib. 28 f. Cf. Dio 54. 27. 4.

105 Aug. 53; Tib. 27; cf. Annals 3. 65.

106 Suet, . Aug. 35Google Scholar; Dio 53. 21. 3; 54. 15. 6; 55. 4. 1; 55. 25. 4 f.; 56. 28. 4–6; Tac, . Ann. 1. 74. 5Google Scholar.

107 Silences: Annals 1. 74. 4; 77. 3; 2. 35. 2; 4. 37. 1. Ambiguity, e.g. 1. 11. 2; 3. 22. 2; 51. 2. But cf. 4. 2. 3; 30. 2; 31. 2; 70 f., or his letter in 3. 53 f. and speech in 4. 37 f.

108 Crook, J. A., Consilium Principis (1955), 9 fGoogle Scholar. See n. 29.

109 Annals 3. 25–7; cf. Brunt, , Italian Manpower 558–60Google Scholar for Augustus (note Suet. 89. 3).

110 E.g. Dio 54. 16. 3–5; Annals 1. 77; 2. 33; 35 f.; 3. 33 f.; cf. next note.

111 Annals 1.16; 3. 52–5.

112 Annals 1. 2. 1; 7. 1; 11; 14. 1; 2. 38. 4 etc. (cf. n. 102).

113 E.g. L. and Cn. Piso (2. 34 f.) and M. Lepidus (4. 20).