No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 September 2022
The focus of this article is on a curious episode at the end of the first book of Tacitus’ Annals. It is argued that Tacitus here is at his most metaphoric and allusive, allowing a senatorial debate on the possibly prophetic meaning of an inundation of the Tiber to become a debate about the overwhelming power of the river's namesake Tiberius. Parallels from Dio (and perhaps also from Livy) indicate that inundations of the Tiber by the end of the Republic had become prophetic warnings of the rise of the dynasts undermining the stability of the Republic. In Tacitus, procedural anomalies and suggestive wordplay bring to the fore the religious and constitutional issues that in the Senate's handling of this Tiberine prodigium reflect its submission to the ever more oppressive power of Tiberius.
1 I am grateful to the editors and a reader for helpful suggestions. As for narrative sequel, note, for instance, that the year starts at Ann. 1.55.1, but events on 1 January in Rome are not reported until 1.72.1 (Tiberius’ refusal to allow his acta to be affirmed by oaths).
2 Ginsburg, J., Tradition and Theme in the Annals of Tacitus (New York, 1981), 72Google Scholar.
3 Tacitus (himself a quindecimuir) is careful to use the proper traditional formula for ‘consulting’ (adire) the Sibylline books: Ann. 1.76.1 ut libri Sibyllini adirentur; 15.44.1 aditi … Sibyllae libri; cf. Macrob. Sat. 1.17.29 (quoting [M.] Laelius Augur, probably the friend of the younger Scipio Africanus: RE s.v. ‘Laelius’ 3); Censorinus, DN 17.8 (quoting Varro). Livy also adheres to this traditional usage: 5.13.4, 22.9.7, 36.37.4, 41.21.10.
4 Splitting a senate debate up in its proper two sections: Tac. Ann. 3.32, 3.35, 3.58–9, 3.71.2 with Syme, R., Tacitus (Oxford, 1958), 279–80Google Scholar; Ginsburg (n. 2), 70, 119.
5 Born c.38 b.c., Asinius Gallus was a quindecimuir already in 17 b.c., doubtless a sign of Augustus’ and Agrippa's (cf. n. 44 below) high approval: ILS 5050.
6 Tac. Ann. 1.76.1 (translation: Grant, M., Tacitus. The Annals of Imperial Rome [Harmondsworth, 1971]Google Scholar). When not otherwise specified, translations are in the following my own.
7 Shannon-Henderson, K.E., Religion and Memory in Tacitus’ Annals (Oxford, 2019), 25–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar rightly sees the episode as ‘paradigmatic’ (29) in so far as Tiberius deprives the Senate of its traditional role in handling prophecy.
8 Gall, J. Le, Recherches sur le culte du Tibre (Paris, 1953), 62–6Google Scholar; Aldrete, G.S., Floods of the Tiber in Ancient Rome (Baltimore, 2007), 294–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Inundations not resulting in (known) religious activity; Oros. 4.11.6 (241 b.c.); Livy 24.9.6 (215 b.c.), 30.26.5 (203 b.c.), 38.28.4 (189 b.c.); Dio 54.25.2 (13 b.c.), 58.26.5–27.1 (a.d. 36). Sibylline books consulted because of the Tiber's (a) freezing or (b) flooding: (a) Livy 5.13.1–5; (b) Livy 35.9.2–5 (193 b.c.); flooding in 54 b.c. (Dio 39.61.1–4) was widely seen as a portent, worsening a crisis leading to the consultation of the Sybils: Cic. QFr. 3.7.1 (54 b.c.) with Parke, H.W., Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in Classical Antiquity (London and New York, 1988), 190–215Google Scholar and J. Osgood, ‘Dio and the voice of the Sybil’, in J. Osgood and C. Brown (edd.), Cassius Dio and the Late Roman Republic (Leiden and Boston, 2019), 197–214. supplicatio or other religious measures because of Tiber floods: Livy 7.3.1 (363 b.c.), 30.38.10 (202 b.c.), 35.21.5 (192 b.c.); further Tiber floods seen as portents: Livy 4.49.2 (414 b.c.); Dio 53.20.1 (27 b.c.), 53.33.5 (23 b.c.), 54.1.1 (22 b.c.), 55.22.3 and, probably, Aufidius Bassus, FRHist F 4, who mentions the miseranda clades hominum domorumque caused by the flood in a.d. 5, 56.27.4 (a.d. 12) (J.P. Davies, Rome's Religious History: Livy, Tacitus and Ammianus on their Gods [Cambridge, 2004], 190 seems mistaken when claiming that the latter episode led to the consultation of the Sibyls; but the ludi were repeated); for further floodings seen as portents, see Dio 57.14.7–8; Tac. Ann. 1.76.1 (a.d. 15); Dio 58.26.5–27.1 (a.d. 36).
10 quin immo uatis [sc. Tiberis] intelligitur potius ac monitor auctu semper religiosus uerius quam saeuus, Plin. NH 3.55.
11 F.R.D. Goodyear, The Annals of Tacitus Books 1–6, Vol. II (Annals I.55–81 and Annals 2) (Cambridge, 1981), on Ann. 1.76.1.
12 Intervention against spurious Sibylline prophecy: Dio 57.18.4–5 (a.d. 19); Tac. Ann. 6.12.2 (a.d. 32); against soothsayers: Aufidius Bassus, FRHist F 4; Tac. Ann. 2.32.3; Dio 57.15.8 (a.d. 16) with A. Pettinger, The Republic in Danger. Drusus Libo and the Succession of Tiberius (Oxford, 2012), 17–27; Suet. Tib. 63.1.
13 Tiberius’ belief: ἐκεῖνος [sc. Tiberius] … νομίσας, Dio 57.14.8; ‘engineer’: H. Furneaux, The Annals of Tacitus, vol. I (Oxford, 1896), on Ann. 1.76.1; similarly, R. Seager, Tiberius (London, 20052), 124. Compare the flooding in 54 b.c., seen by some as having natural causes but by most as a portent: Dio 39.61.1–3.
14 ‘embarrass’: Syme (n. 4), 281; the proposal ‘insidious’: R. Syme, The Augustan Aristocracy (Oxford, 1986), 130; ‘nothing propitious’: R. Syme, Roman Papers, vol. IV (Oxford, 1988), 215–16; similarly, E. Koestermann, Cornelius Tacitus. Annalen, vol. I (Heidelberg, 1963), ad loc. and Shotter, D.C.A., ‘Tiberius and Asinius Gallus’, Historia 20 (1971), 443–57Google Scholar, at 448.
15 B. Levick, Tiberius the Politician (London, 1976), 105, however, sees Gallus’ suggestion as flippant and ‘sarcastic’; similarly, ead., Augustus. Image and Substance (Pearson, 2010), 145 on the ‘inadequacy (or impertinence)’ of Gallus’ advice. A.B. Bosworth, ‘Tacitus and Asinius Gallus’, AJAH 2 (1977), 173–92, at 175 suspects Tacitus of inventing a conflict, where there was none; the context does not seem to support these views.
16 Control: Dio 39.15.3–16.1 (56 b.c.), 54.17.2 (18 b.c.); Suet. Aug. 31.1 (further measures in 12 b.c.). The contentious affair in 57–54 b.c. with a Tiber flood and a consultation of the Sibyls, who opposed the homecoming of King Ptolemy, had deeply divided the Senate: Dio 39.61.1–3; Cic. QFr. 3.7.1 (54 b.c.) with Parke (n. 9), 207–9 and Osgood (n. 9), 197–214.
17 The Triumvirate a ‘conspiracy to attack the republic’ (rem publicam inuadere conspiratio): Livy, Per. 103.
18 The flood sent by τὸ δαιμόνιον: Dio 37.58.2 (Dio's usual word for the powers above: 42.17.1, 43.35.2, 45.4.4, 47.40.1, 51.17.4).
19 Almost all the aspects of the flood and prodigia listed by Dio 37.58.3–4 (tornado, trees uprooted, houses ruined, inundation, destruction of bridge and loss of human life) were also in Livy (whose prodigia for that year are listed in Obs. 62); on the clear signs in composition and structure of Dio's reliance on annalistic predecessors, see P.M. Swan, The Augustan Succession: An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio's Roman History Books 55–56 (9 b.c.–a.d. 14) (Oxford, 2004), 17–26; many such floods probably featured in other pre-Tacitean historians as well.
20 Dio 53.20.1; ‘embarrassment’: Becher, I., ‘Tiberüberschwemmungen: Die Interpretation von Prodigien in augusteischer Zeit’, Klio 67 (1985), 471–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 474–5; Rich, J.W., The Augustan Settlement. Roman History 53.1–55.9 (Warminster, 1990)Google Scholar, ad loc.; Becher (this note), 477 and Rich (this note), ad loc. plausibly suspect that punning on augere and Augustus (cf. n. 32 below) was part of the positive spin.
21 On the First Triumvirate in Asinius Pollio and other sources, see now A. Drummond in FRHist vol. I (Oxford, 2013), 437–43 (with bibliography); cf. Vell. Pat. 2.44.1 inita potentiae societas, quae urbi orbique terrarum nec minus diuerso quoque tempore ipsis exitiabilis fuit, Flor. 2.13.8 sic igitur Caesare dignitatem comparare, Crasso augere, Pompeio retinere cupientibus, omnibusque pariter potentiae cupidis de inuadenda re publica facile conuenit.
22 L. Cincius Alimentus, FRHist F 6; Lutatius Catulus, FRHist F 5. Varro, Ling. 5.30, Ov. Met. 14.614–16, Fast. 2.390, Livy 1.3.8 and Serv. ad Verg. Aen. 8.330 list further such legendary etymologies.
23 Chase, G.D., ‘The origin of Roman praenomina’, HSPh 8 (1897), 103–85Google Scholar, at 154 quotes Incerti auctoris, De praenominibus 6 Tiberii uocitari coeperunt, qui ad Tiberim nascebantur.
24 Shannon-Henderson (n. 7), 27 focusses on parallels with Livy; but note the instances quoted in nn. 3 (Laelius and Varro) and 12 (Aufidius Bassus).
25 For eodem anno, Tac. Ann. 1.76.1 and similarly Ann. 13.58.1; cf. eodem anno prodigia aliquot, Livy 26.23.4; similarly 5.32.6, 7.6.1; for Tac. Ann. 1.76.1 Tiberis plana urbis stagnauerat, cf. Livy 35.9.2 Tiberis loca plana urbis inundauit; 38.28.4 Tiberis … plana … urbis inundauit.
26 Floods in 60 and 54 b.c. and a.d. 5 had also caused loss of lives—and had widely been seen as signs of divine anger: Dio 37.58.2–4, 39.61.1–3; Aufidius Bassus, FRHist F 4.
27 Arruntius was likewise a senior quindecimuir: ILS 5050; Ateius Capito had in 17 b.c. interpreted an oracle in a manner proving that the date for the ludi saeculares was correct: Zos. 2.4. For Tiberius, Arruntius and Ateius, see Syme (n. 14 [1986]), 97, 431 and passim; Dio 57.14.8 further records the establishment of a committee responsible for regulating the Tiber; it had five members chosen by lot: Aldrete (n. 8), 201; it has been assumed that Dio misdates its establishment (Syme [n. 4], 691), but such doubts seem unnecessary: Aldrete (n. 8), 199; C. Mallan, ‘A historical and historiographical commentary on Cassius Dio's Roman History Book 57.1–17.8’ (Diss., University of Oxford, 2015), ad loc. (consulted 4 March 2020 at https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:6ed64b29-f881-4de2-a647-6212cf0dc7c0).
28 Gallus’ inspection of the Tiber in 8 b.c. is epigraphically well attested: Levick (n. 15), 105; Flower, H.I., The Art of Forgetting. Disgrace & Oblivion in Roman Political Culture (Chapel Hill, 2006), 144Google Scholar (twenty-two known boundary markers).
29 Tac. Ann. 1.79.3. The solemnity is notable: cf. Curt. 8.2.1.1 male humanis ingeniis natura consuluit, quod plerumque non futura, sed transacta perpendimus.
30 Tac. Ann. 1.79.3; Grant (n. 6) translates: ‘indeed Tiber himself would scarcely be glad to flow less majestically, deprived of his associate tributaries’; ‘majestically’ is apt, but nolle and prorsus are stronger than ‘would scarcely’. A.J. Church and W. Jackson Brodribb, The Annals of Tacitus translated into English (Chicago, 1900), ad loc. is better: ‘Tiber himself would be altogether unwilling … to flow with less glory’. C. Damon, Tacitus Annals (London, 2012) (quoted above) is very direct: ‘Tiber himself does not want …’.
31 See the seminal summary by A.J. Woodman and R.H. Martin (edd.), The Annals of Tacitus Book 3 (Cambridge, 1996), 491–3. A sample would include: Hist. 5.9.1 regnum … Augustus auxit; Ann. 12.26.1 augetur et Agrippina cognomento Augustae and 5.1.1 Rubellio et Fufio consulibus, quorum utrique Geminus cognomentum erat.
32 Tac. Ann. 1.52.1 Germanici gloria angebatur [sc. Tiberius].
33 Tac. Ann. 2.84.1 non temperauerit quin iactaret. In Tacitus’ book, such bragging is despicable: cf. e.g. Ann. 4.11.1, 6.25.3, 15.4.1; Hist. 3.39.1.
34 Tac. Ann. 2.84.1 nam cuncta, etiam fortuita, ad gloriam uertebat [sc. Tiberius].
35 Tac. Ann. 2.88.1 qua gloria aequabat se Tiberius priscis imperatoribus; the plural seems rhetorical: Tiberius is aligning himself with the legendary C. Fabricius Luscinus (cos. 282 b.c.): Livy, Per. 13; Claudius Quadrigarius, FRHist F 41; Luscinus was a man of magna gloria: Gell. NA 4.8.9.
36 Tac. Ann. 3.47.4 se non tam uacuum gloria praedicabat; praedicabat is telling: cf. Cic. Arch. 26 on philosophers denigrating pride and glory but still putting their name on the book's cover (in eo ipso in quo praedicationem … despiciunt, praedicari de se ac se nominari uolunt); similarly, Off. 1.137 deforme etiam est de se ipsum praedicare …; this, Cicero adds, is the behaviour of a latter-day Miles gloriosus.
37 Tac. Ann. 3.54.6 cum gloriam eius rei adepti sunt, simultates … mihi reliquunt.
38 Tac. Ann. 6.45.1 ad gloriam uertit [sc. Tiberius].
39 Tac. Ann. 1.12.2–4; the episode's implications remain hotly contested, views ranging from Syme (n. 4), 427–8 and M. Griffin, ‘Tacitus, Tiberius and the Principate’, in I. Malkin and Z.W. Rubinsohn (edd.), Leaders & Masses in the Roman World. Studies in Honor of Zvi Yavetz (Leiden, 1995), 33–58 (with whom I side) to Woodman, A.J., ‘Tacitus on Tiberius’ accession’, Tacitus Reviewed (Oxford, 1998), 40–69Google Scholar (with ample bibliography); it is widely agreed, however, that Tiberius at the occasion ineptly mishandled the issue, when asking for a more ‘constitutional’ legitimation of his (unacknowledged and non-negotiable) powerbase. Looking back with a century or two of imperial experience, the ‘insincerity’ verdict of Tacitus, Suetonius and Dio seems well founded.
40 Dio 57.2.5 stresses that Gallus had inherited the ‘blunt speech’ (παρρησία) of his father; cf. Tac. Ann. 1.12.4 patris ferociam with Mallan (n. 27), ad loc. and the introduction to Pollio in FRHist, vol. I (Oxford, 2013), 430–45.
41 Herbert-Brown, G., ‘C. Asinius Gallus, Ti. Claudius Nero and a posthumous Agrippa in Ephesus (ILS 8897)’, Syllecta Classica 15 (2004), 131–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar looks convincingly at evidence predating Tiberius’ accession, which illustrates Gallus’ loyalty to the ‘House’ of Agrippa and his deep-seated conflict with Tiberius.
42 For Asinius Gallus as a quindecimuir, see n. 5 above; Tacitus the same: Ann. 11.11.1.
43 In the Senate of his day, L. Arruntius, M. Valerius Messala Messalinus and perhaps also C. Sentius Saturninus were further survivors from that prestigious group: Syme (n. 14 [1986]), 47–9. In talks of Augustus (as reported by Tac. Ann. 1.13.2), Asinius Gallus had along with Arruntius been mentioned as capax imperii (probably resulting in Tiberius’ deadly hostility towards both).
44 Like Tiberius’ one-time wife Julia (Linderski, J., ‘Julia at Rhegium’, ZPE 72 [1988], 181–200Google Scholar) and his grandson Drusus (Tac. Ann. 6.23.2), Asinius Gallus was apparently starved to death: Ann. 6.23.1; for Gallus’ damnatio and post-Tiberian rehabilitation, see Flower (n. 28), 143–8.
45 quod in pace fors seu natura, tunc fatum et ira deum uocabatur [dei MSS: deum Nipperdey], Tac. Hist. 4.26.2.
46 ‘sole arbiter’: Shannon-Henderson (n. 7), 27.
47 The Senate ordering the decemuiri, later quindecimuiri, to consult the Sibyls: Livy 5.13.4 (ex senatus consulto), 7.27.1 (senatum imperare); similarly 21.62.6 and 22.9.7; 36.37.4 (ex senatus consulto), 41.21.10 (senatus decreuit); similarly, Dio 39.15.3–16.1, 39.59.3.
48 set dum ueritati consulitur, libertas corrumpebatur, Ann. 1.75.1.