Gallus as a Partisan of Tiberius

This section aims to paint a more coherent portrait of Asinius Gallus’ career under Tiberius. First, I will list each of Gallus’ recorded actions in the Senate. Then I will summarise and deconstruct Tacitus’ interpretations of these events, showing how the historian distorts Gallus’ image to bring his own views of Tiberius and the Senate into sharper focus.Footnote ¹⁶ Finally, I will build on Bosworth's work to offer an alternative explanation of Gallus’ actions. Bosworth shows very clearly what Gallus was not (a lifelong enemy of Tiberius), but I hope to reveal more of what he truly was: a leading consular who desired a mutually beneficial relationship between the emperor and the Senate.

The first of Gallus’ recorded actions in the Senate was his proposal, after Augustus died in 14, that the funeral procession should enter the city through the triumphal gate. According to Tacitus, this was considered a most distinguished honour (Tac. Ann. 1.8.3). His next appearance in the Annals is perhaps his most famous: when Tiberius claimed reluctance (whether real or feigned) to take on all of Augustus’ responsibilities, and when he suggested a new system of power sharing, Gallus responded, ‘I ask you, Caesar, what part of the republic would you like to be entrusted to you?’Footnote ¹⁷ Tacitus writes that Tiberius’ speech had been intentionally obscure, and that Gallus’ directness shocked and offended the would-be emperor. Gallus elaborated that the state could not be divided, and he went on to praise Tiberius.Footnote ¹⁸

In 15 CE, there was a series of destructive and deadly Tiber floods. Gallus, who was a quindecimvir sacris faciundis of long standing, proposed that these be considered a prodigy and the Sibylline Books consulted (Tac. Ann. 1.76.1). In the same year, some plebs and soldiers died in disturbances in the theatre. The actors were blamed for abusing magistrates and stirring up dissension, and it was proposed that praetors should have the right to flog actors. Haterius Agrippa, tribune of the plebs and kinsman of Germanicus, vetoed the proposal, and Gallus attacked him violently in a speech.Footnote ¹⁹

In 16 CE, when Tacitus returns to domestic affairs after a description of events in Germany, Gallus makes four successive appearances. After Drusus Libo's alleged conspiracy and suicide, Gallus and three other leading senators proposed that gifts be offered to Jupiter, Mars, and Concordia, and that the Ides of September (when Libo died) should be made a festival day (Tac. Ann. 2.32.2). On the next day, Tacitus writes, Quintus Haterius and Octavius Fronto proposed sumptuary legislation. Gallus spoke against it, arguing that senators’ wealth should accord with their dignitas, and that the more responsibility a man assumed for the state, the more luxury he deserved (Tac. Ann. 2.33.1–4).

During the res prolatae that same year, Tiberius was planning to be away from Rome, and the senators did not know what to do with themselves. Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso suggested that they should continue to receive embassies from Italy and the provinces in the emperor's absence, but Gallus disagreed: ‘Nothing,’ he said, ‘is illustrious enough or worthy of the dignity of the Roman people unless it happens in the presence of Caesar and right before his eyes’ (nihil satis inlustre aut ex dignitate populi Romani nisi coram et sub oculis Caesaris, Tac. Ann. 2.35.2). In the same year, Gallus suggested three changes to the electoral procedures: rather than hold annual elections, the Senate should at one time select magistrates for each of the next five years; legionary commanders who had not yet held the praetorship should be designated to it; and Tiberius should name twelve candidates to the praetorship each year (Tac. Ann. 2.36.1).

Gallus does not appear again until 24 CE, when he takes a hard line against Sosia Galla. Sosia's husband, Gaius Silius, had been accused of collusion in Sacrovir's revolt and extortion while governor of Upper Germany. According to Tacitus, his friendship with Germanicus was the source of his downfall: ‘For this reason [Tiberius] attacked Gaius Silius and Titius Sabinus. The friendship of Germanicus was ruinous to them both’ (Qua causa C. Silium et Titium Sabinum adgreditur. Amicitia Germanici perniciosa utrique, Tac. Ann. 4.18.1). After Silius committed suicide, his wife Sosia, a friend of Agrippina, was sent into exile on Gallus’ proposal.Footnote ²⁰ He also suggested that half of her property be confiscated – an excessive penalty – but Marcus Lepidus successfully argued for the usual punishment: a quarter of her property should be given to her accusers and the remainder to her children.Footnote ²¹

Later in the same year, Gallus proposed another harsh punishment for an enemy of Tiberius, Gaius Vibius Serenus. Already in exile on Amorgus for vis publica, Serenus was accused by his own son of conspiring against the emperor. It was a complicated trial: when the case seemed to be falling apart, the young Vibius Serenus fled to Ravenna, but Tiberius had him dragged back to Rome so that the trial could be completed. The emperor, Tacitus tells us, could not hide his longtime hatred of the elder Serenus (non occultante Tiberio vetus odium adversum exulem Serenum, Tac. Ann. 4.29.2). When Serenus was convicted and sentenced to exile again, Gallus suggested that he should be relocated to Gyarus or Donusa. But Tiberius refused because these islands lacked water, and Serenus was sent back to Amorgus (Tac. Ann. 4.30.1).

Gallus’ last recorded act in the Annals was in 28 CE, two years after Tiberius had left Rome for Capri (Tacitus’ narrative breaks off before Gallus’ imprisonment in 30). After the execution of Titius Sabinus, Tiberius complained in a letter to the Senate that ‘his own life was full of danger, that he suspected that his enemies were conspiring against him, but he did not identify anyone by name. Yet everyone knew that he was referring to Nero and Agrippina’ (trepidam sibi vitam, suspectas inimicorum insidias, nullo nominatim compellato; neque tamen dubitabatur in Neronem et Agrippinam intendi, Tac. Ann. 4.70.4). Then Gallus, ‘to whose children Agrippina was maternal aunt, asked the princeps to reveal his fears to the Senate and allow them to be removed’ (cuius liberorum Agrippina matertera erat, petendum a principe ut metus suos senatui fateretur amoverique sineret, Tac. Ann. 4.71.2).

These are the eleven recorded actions of Gallus before his downfall and imprisonment, mostly stripped of Tacitus’ glosses. Let us now turn to those glosses and to the portrait of Gallus that Tacitus hands down to us: an enemy of Tiberius from the beginning, an ambitious schemer, who attempts to undermine the emperor by exposing his closely guarded secrets. Tacitus’ Gallus oscillates between bald flattery toward the emperor and calculated attacks against him.Footnote ²² Tacitus sees an ugly sycophancy in the reaction to Drusus Libo's conspiracy: ‘I have recorded their proposals and flatteries so that it might be known how far back this evil went in the state’ (quorum auctoritates adulationesque rettuli ut sciretur vetus id in re publica malum, Tac. Ann. 2.32.2). In the debate over Sosia Galla's punishment, Tacitus praises Lepidus’ moderation at Gallus’ expense: ‘I am discovering that this Lepidus was a wise and serious man in those days, for he often steered matters away from the fierce sycophancies of others to better things’ (hunc ego Lepidum temporibus illis gravem et sapientem virum fuisse comperior: nam pleraque ab saevis adulationibus aliorum in melius flexit, Tac. Ann. 4.20.2). He goes on to ask whether it was by fate or birth that men such as Lepidus had greater influence with emperors, or whether ‘there was something in our own strategies that allows us to proceed between sheer insolence and shameful flattery down a path devoid of ambition and danger’ (sit aliquid in nostris consiliis liceatque inter abruptam contumaciam et deforme obsequium pergere iter ambitione ac periculis vacuum, Tac. Ann. 4.20.3). Perhaps Tacitus here is contrasting Lepidus with the Roman elite as a whole, who had chosen either to flatter or to fight the emperor. But this is also an apt description of Tacitus’ Gallus alone.

For Tacitus, Gallus’ alleged attacks on Tiberius were all grounded in exposing lies and uncovering secrets. In the accession debate, when the emperor's speech was intentionally obscure, Gallus forced his hand and angered the princeps. When Gallus asked to consult the Sibylline Books after the floods of 15 CE, ‘Tiberius refused, concealing divine as well as human matters’ (renuit Tiberius, perinde divina humanaque obtegens, Tac. Ann. 1.76.1). According to Tacitus, when Piso proposed that Senate meetings be held in the emperor's absence, Gallus was motivated by this false display of liberty to argue against him (quia speciem libertatis Piso praeceperat, Tac. Ann. 2.35.2). As for Gallus’ proposed election reforms, Tacitus writes that ‘there was no doubt that this proposal penetrated more deeply and tested the mysteries of power’ (haud dubium erat eam sententiam altius penetrare et arcana imperii temptari, Tac. Ann. 2.36.1). And when in 28 he asked Tiberius to reveal his fears so that the Senate could remove them, Tacitus tells us that Tiberius was outraged by his intrusion: ‘Tiberius loved none of his virtues (as he saw them) more than dissimulation: so much the worse did he take it when he was asked to disclose something he was trying to hide’ (nullam aeque Tiberius, ut rebatur, ex virtutibus suis quam dissimulationem diligebat: eo aegrius accepit recludi quae premeret, Tac. Ann. 4.71.3).

Ultimately, Tacitus’ Gallus is both a villain and a victim, and Tacitus uses him above all to characterise Tiberius.Footnote ²³ His actions bring out the emperor's worst vices: dishonest and overly sensitive, Tiberius plots and conceals and forces an anxious Senate to guess his wishes. But Gallus also stands in for the Roman Senate as a whole, as a paradigm of their many faults. He is avidus et minor, sycophantic and insolent, greedy and vicious. For Tacitus, Gallus’ path of ambition and danger was the typical one for a senator, both under Tiberius and in his own day. He uses Gallus not only to sharpen his depiction of Tiberius, but also to comment on the role that senators played in perpetuating the principate.Footnote ²⁴

Bosworth was right to question Tacitus’ portrayal of Gallus. He suggested that ‘Tacitus has drawn upon two different traditions for his picture of Asinius Gallus, one a factually neutral record of his appearances in the Senate and the other a tendentious reinterpretation of his actions. Tacitus has drawn upon them indiscriminately and has left the inconsistencies unresolved.’Footnote ²⁵ If Tacitus has simply superimposed his own or his sources’ negative judgments on top of genuine facts, we should be able to clear away these biases to learn something about the real Gallus.

If we do this, we see two distinct and consistent trends in Gallus’ actions: he advocated both for Tiberius’ interests and for the dignitas – the status and authority – of the Senate. He encouraged Tiberius to accept leadership of the state after Augustus’ death and praised him as the only man fit for the job.Footnote ²⁶ Time and again, he anticipated the emperor's needs, through the honours to Augustus and the excessive punishments for his enemies (Drusus Libo, Sosia Galla, and Vibius Serenus).Footnote ²⁷ His proposal to consult the Sibylline Books after the floods of 15 CE was not meant, as Syme claims, to ‘embarrass the government.’Footnote ²⁸ A quindecimvir could not have used the Sibylline Books against Tiberius, who was himself a member of the priesthood. The priests were more likely to offer a positive interpretation for the flood, one that supported Tiberius in his new position.Footnote ²⁹

Furthermore, given the emperor's complaints, Gallus’ request in 28 that he divulge his fears to the Senate was a sensible one for a leading consular to make.Footnote ³⁰ An offer of help to the emperor, but also something more: a lifeline to the struggling Senate, paralysed by the realisation that Tiberius was accusing Agrippina and Nero, and unsure how to proceed against members of the imperial family. In this as in other episodes, Gallus served not only as a partisan of Tiberius, but as a mouthpiece for the Senate's interests. When he pushed Tiberius to accept the Senate's acclamation after Augustus’ death, he both supported Tiberius’ claims to power, and emphasised the Senate's role in confirming emperors. He defended the Senate's authority when he railed against Haterius Agrippa's veto in the controversy about punishing actors. Not only had the actors abused senators, but the veto itself threatened the freedom of the Senate in a heated debate.Footnote ³¹ In the next year, he spoke against sumptuary legislation, arguing that wealth distinguished equites from senators, whose labours on behalf of the state earned them greater luxuries.Footnote ³² His concern was the eminence of senators and the display of that eminence. Later that year, when Piso argued that Senate meetings should continue in Tiberius’ absence, Gallus objected that the Senate's work could only be legitimised by Caesar's gaze. He was right. The Senate had no authority without the emperor behind it. Gallus might have saved them considerable embarrassment; if the princeps left the city, some embassies would have preferred to await his return rather than address the Senate alone.Footnote ³³

Likewise, Gallus’ electoral reforms can be understood, not as an attack against the emperor (Tacitus identifies it as a certamen between the two men), but as a compromise. Two years before, the Senate had requested more praetorships (Tac. Ann. 1.14.4). Perhaps there was a shortage of men to perform certain praetorian functions, including the legionary command. Gallus’ proposal could have addressed the problem. The reform would have increased the number of praetors-elect without increasing praetorships, giving Tiberius far more men to choose from when he made legionary appointments. This would have been particularly beneficial for patricians, who tended to hold fewer legionary commands than other elite men.Footnote ³⁴ The reforms would allow young patricians to serve as legati legionum earlier in their careers so that they were freed for more important praetorian service later on. Or they could avoid legionary command altogether, with a small group of military men holding multiple commands over the course of their careers instead, starting even before they held the praetorship.Footnote ³⁵ Gallus was not criticising Tiberius for appointing some legionary commanders before they had held the praetorship; he was encouraging him to choose more. This was a compromise between Senate and emperor, one that provided more eligible legionary commanders while still maintaining the limit of twelve praetors per year, which Tiberius had shown in the first elections of his principate was very important to him (Tac. Ann. 1.14.4).

When we examine Gallus’ actions on their own, without Tacitus’ glosses, we see a consistency in his behaviour throughout Tiberius’ principate. He supported the emperor and encouraged him to accept the full responsibility of government; he worked for the Senate's dignitas, as grounded in a strong relationship with the emperor; he praised Tiberius and his father, attacked his enemies, and anticipated his needs. In the next section, we will consider how these qualities – his support for Tiberius’ power and the Senate's dignity, and his desire to position himself between the Senate and emperor – might have led to his downfall.

Sejanus’ Consulship and Gallus’ Downfall

Cassius Dio's story of Gallus’ downfall mimics Tacitus’ characterisation of him, reminding the reader of his marriage to Vipsania Agrippina and of his outspokenness (58.3.1, Xiph.). We have already shown that the emperor's long-burning hostility toward Gallus is not credible. But Dio gives one valuable piece of testimony concerning the reason for Gallus’ downfall: Tiberius’ letter denouncing him to the Senate. This letter, no doubt recorded in the acta Senatus, should be considered particularly reliable evidence of the emperor's views. Most of the details have been lost – Dio does not name the ‘other things’ of which Tiberius accused Gallus – but one key allegation is preserved: ‘that Gallus begrudged Sejanus his friendship with the emperor, even though Gallus himself had Syriacus as a friend’ (ὅτι τῷ Σɛϊανῷ τῆς πρὸς ἑαυτὸν φιλίας φθονοίη, καίπɛρ αὐτὸς Συριακῷ φίλῳ χρώμɛνος).

As we saw above, Bosworth interprets τῷ Σɛϊανῷ τῆς πρὸς ἑαυτὸν φιλίας φθονοίη to mean that Gallus was jealous of Sejanus’ friendship with Tiberius, because Gallus wanted to be closer to Sejanus. Bosworth explains, ‘Gallus was trying to monopolise Seianus and begrudged his intimacy with Tiberius. He was driving a wedge between Tiberius and Seianus, and by his flattering overtures was attempting to supplant Tiberius in the prefect's attentions.’Footnote ³⁶ His suggestion that Gallus sought a relationship with Sejanus rather than with Tiberius is no doubt grounded in Gallus’ proposal of honours to Sejanus – the ‘flattering overtures’ Bosworth mentions – and his endeavours to be part of the embassy reporting these honours to the prefect and emperor.Footnote ³⁷ But Dio himself questions Gallus’ motives and raises the possibility that the honours to Sejanus might not have been in line with his true feelings; as we saw above, he proposes a number of possible explanations for Gallus’ behaviour.Footnote ³⁸

With Dio's equivocations in mind, we must look more closely at his rendering of Tiberius’ letter to the Senate. What does it mean that τῷ Σɛϊανῷ τῆς πρὸς ἑαυτὸν φιλίας φθονοίη? I have translated this phrase ‘Gallus begrudged Sejanus his friendship with the emperor.’ This is technically correct, but it leaves the sense unclear. Did Gallus begrudge Sejanus the emperor's friendship because he hated Sejanus and did not want him to enjoy this good, or because he himself desired a friendship with Sejanus and did not want the emperor coming between them?

The latter interpretation, preferred by Bosworth, presents the relationship between Gallus, Sejanus, and Tiberius as something like a love triangle, with the emperor threatening the friendship of Gallus and Sejanus. The Greek verb φθονέω can be used in this way. In Euripides’ Herakles (1308–9), Hera is said to resent (φθονοῦσα) Zeus for his affair with Alkmene: ἣ γυναικὸς οὕνɛκα / λέκτρων φθονοῦσα घηνὶ . . . . What Hera feels here is possessive jealousy, a desire to keep Zeus only to herself.Footnote ³⁹ But this is an uncommon use of the word. More typically, φθονέω refers to ‘begrudging envy’ (‘I am upset that you have something, and I want to deprive you of it’) or ‘covetous envy’ (‘I am upset that you have something, and I want to have it instead of you’).Footnote ⁴⁰

These more typical meanings reflect Dio's use of the word. In his Histories, forms of φθόνος / φθονέω appear 92 times, and there is not a single use indicating possessive jealousy – a desire to keep to oneself the person toward whom he feels φθόνος.Footnote ⁴¹ Instead, in every instance, φθόνος implies hatred or resentment, not love or desire, against the person to whom it is directed. Dio praises characters for not feeling φθόνος and for not inciting it in others.Footnote ⁴² Φθόνος implies or begets hatred, and it destroys friendships. Several times, forms of φθόνος / φθονέω appear with forms of μισέω or ἐπιβουλɛύω – ‘to hate’ or ‘to plot’.Footnote ⁴³ When one friend excels the other, Dio writes, the weaker will feel φθόνος and the stronger disdain, so that ‘they come to conflict and war in place of their former friendship’ (πρός τɛ διαφορὰς καὶ πρὸς πολέμους ἐκ τῆς πρὶν φιλίας ἀφικνɛῖσθαι, 39.26.2). Φθόνος and φιλία are incompatible.Footnote ⁴⁴

Four examples from Dio and one from his epitomist Zonaras, in which the verb φθονέω is used with the dative of person and genitive of thing (as in the phrase τῷ Σɛϊανῷ τῆς πρὸς ἑαυτὸν φιλίας φθονοίη), confirm that Gallus would not have felt affection toward Sejanus.Footnote ⁴⁵ In 200 BCE, the consul C. Aurelius Cotta begrudged the praetor L. Furius Purpureo (in the dative, τῷ στρατηγῷ) his victory (in the genitive, τῆς νίκης) over the Ligurians and Gauls (φθονήσας τῆς νίκης τῷ στρατηγῷ, Zonar. 9.15.7). He sent the praetor away and continued the war without him in retaliation for the praetor's success, and he protested to the Senate after Furius was awarded a triumph (Livy 31.49.8–11). After Cato committed suicide, Caesar complained that Cato had begrudged him (in the dative) the honour (in the genitive) of saving him (οἱ τῆς ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ αὐτοῦ ɛὐκλɛίας ἐφθόνησɛ, Cass. Dio 43.12.1). Octavian begrudged Antony (dative, ἐκɛίνῳ) a triumph (genitive) over Armenia (καὶ ἐκɛίνῳ τῶν νικητηρίων ἐφθόνɛι, 49.41.5). Cleopatra asked Octavian not to begrudge her (in the dative) burial (in the genitive) with Antony (πέμψον μɛ πρὸς Ἀντώνιον, μηδέ μοι τῆς σὺν αὐτῷ ταφῆς φθονήσῃς, 51.12.7). Not only did each of these pairs – Aurelius / Furius, Caesar / Cato, Octavian / Antony, Octavian / Cleopatra – despise each other; most were, or would soon be, at war.Footnote ⁴⁶ Finally, Augustus is praised for begrudging no one (dative) the glory (genitive) attached to public building (ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τῆς ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς ɛὐκλɛίας ἰδίᾳ τισὶ φθονήσας, Cass. Dio 56.40.5). To begrudge them this glory would have implied resentment and fear of their power.

Given Dio's use of φθόνος, there are two possible ways to translate the clause τῷ Σɛϊανῷ τῆς πρὸς ἑαυτὸν φιλίας φθονοίη: ‘Gallus envied Sejanus for his friendship with Tiberius’ (i.e., he wanted Sejanus out of the way so that he could be closer to the emperor himself – Sanders’ ‘covetous envy’), or ‘Gallus begrudged Sejanus his friendship with Tiberius’ (regardless of his own standing with Tiberius, Gallus did not want Sejanus to have this friendship out of pure spite – Sanders’ ‘begrudging envy’). The clause cannot mean that Gallus wanted to be closer to Sejanus or to keep Sejanus to himself, as Bosworth suggests. As we have seen, φθόνος was a negative emotion in Dio, always directed toward an enemy (or, in the last example, withheld from those who were not enemies): from Aurelius to Furius, Cato to Caesar, Octavian to Antony, Octavian to Cleopatra, Augustus to the Roman elite.

This, then, is how Dio understood Tiberius’ accusation: that Gallus was antagonistic toward Sejanus. But what did Tiberius himself write in his letter to the Senate? The Greek verb φθονέω and its noun φθόνος correspond to the Latin verb invideo and the noun invidia.Footnote ⁴⁷ The root meaning of invideo, like the prototypical meaning of φθόνος, expresses feelings of resentment and envy: it derives from the Latin in + video and is associated with the evil eye. It means ‘to look against’ someone – ‘to look at in a hostile manner or with hostile intent . . .’.Footnote ⁴⁸

Latin invidia can also be translated by the Greek νέμɛσις, denoting a righteous anger at the undeserved success of an unworthy person.Footnote ⁴⁹ But in this passage Dio must be right to choose φθόνος over νέμɛσις; Tiberius, after all, is accusing Gallus of wrongdoing. Kaster explains φθόνος–invidia as a begrudging or covetous envy: ‘I feel invidia – I have an unpleasant psychophysical response to seeing your good – not with reference to some principle of justice but just because it is a good (“Ah, the laughter of happy children at play – I'll put a stop to that!”) or just because it is your good (“Such a big shot, you with your promotion: I hope you choke on it!”).’Footnote ⁵⁰

In short, Tiberius accuses Gallus of resenting Sejanus.Footnote ⁵¹ This is no surprise – many senior senators must surely have hated the equestrian at the pinnacle of power.Footnote ⁵² Sejanus was second only to the emperor – ‘the main conduit between Capri and Rome’.Footnote ⁵³ He exercised his authority in ways that offended and alarmed the nobiles. As Champlin writes, ‘by 28 the only way for a man to win the consulship was said to be through Sejanus. Juvenal likewise has him assigning curule chairs and armies, and examples of Sejanus’ influence in promoting his adherents are scattered throughout the pages of Tacitus’.Footnote ⁵⁴ Tacitus records that in that year senators, equestrians, and plebs went out of the city to beg an audience of the prefect, but that ‘it is widely agreed that his arrogance grew as he looked out on that slavish filth in the open air’ (satis constabat auctam ei adrogantiam foedum illud in propatulo servitium spectanti, Tac. Ann. 4.74.4).

Tiberius had long recognised the Senate's resentment toward Sejanus. Tacitus has him write, in a letter allegedly sent to the prefect in 25 CE,

As in Tiberius’ accusations against Gallus, we see here a concern with amicitia and invidia. And here, as in Dio's account of Gallus’ downfall, the nobles’ invidia toward Sejanus is not an honourable or healthy feeling, justified by his station or character, but a hateful and unwarranted envy. The same men who seek his favour resent his power, and they resent the emperor for giving it to him: perque invidiam tui me quoque incusant.Footnote ⁵⁵ This must have been the basis of the accusation against Gallus: invidia toward Sejanus is an attack on the emperor, since it challenges his decision to delegate power to the prefect.

The letter of 25 CE purports to have been a private correspondence between Sejanus and Tiberius, and we cannot be certain that it was ever published; perhaps it was crafted by Tacitus himself.Footnote ⁵⁶ But it surely reflects an official view. The relationship between Tiberius and Sejanus was recognised by the state; in 28 CE, the Senate voted to set up an ara amicitiae with statues of the two friends.Footnote ⁵⁷ Invidia toward Sejanus was not a petty personal rivalry but a state concern – a destabilising enmity that threatened the position of the emperor. Gallus, Tiberius claimed, felt φθόνος–invidia of Sejanus’ position, which had been granted to him by the emperor himself.Footnote ⁵⁸ He viewed Sejanus as unworthy, or he wanted what Sejanus had, or both. Gallus, of course, would have objected to this accusation, claiming either that he felt no invidia at all (‘Look at the honours I just proposed for your prefect!’) or that what he felt was a righteous νέμɛσις–invidia (‘Sejanus is an equestrian who does not know his place!’). We cannot speak to the reality of the relationship between Gallus and Sejanus, and in a very important sense the facts do not matter; it was Tiberius’ opinion, after all, that killed the consular.Footnote ⁵⁹

If Gallus was a purported enemy of Sejanus, what can we make of the honours that he proposed for the prefect, apparently just before his own imprisonment? The case of a contemporary senator, Velleius Paterculus, may help us to understand Gallus’ actions. Toward the end of his Histories, Velleius writes the so-called panegyric of Sejanus (2.127–8). This passage interrupts the narrative; there is no introductory formula, and the following chapter (129) links to the previous one (126) as if nothing had intervened. The language of the passage does not reflect Velleius’ style but seems instead to derive from official propaganda.Footnote ⁶⁰ As Woodman writes, ‘The section has clearly been inserted to meet an immediate need . . .’Footnote ⁶¹

Sumner and Woodman have shown that this was not a panegyric of Sejanus at all – that the fact that Velleius does not mention Sejanus elsewhere, in events in which he played a key role, indicates that he was not a supporter of the prefect.Footnote ⁶² Instead, the praise of Sejanus here is praise of Tiberius, and of Tiberius’ decision to give him a position of power. An opponent of Sejanus, Velleius is trying to redeem himself at a time when opposition to the prefect is dangerous.

What sparked Velleius’ sudden praise of Tiberius’ selection? Sumner suggests that it was Sejanus’ election to the consulship in 30 CE.Footnote ⁶³ As evidence he cites the list in section 128 of several new men who had risen to the consulship: Tiberius Coruncanius, Spurius Carvilius, the elder Cato, Gaius Marius, Marcus Cicero, and Asinius Pollio. But Woodman disagrees; he suggests that both sections of the passage deal with the same subject: not Sejanus’ future consulship but his role as Tiberius’ adiutor. The passage begins with a list of famous adiutores: the Laelii, Agrippa, and Statilius Taurus. Velleius’ aim, Woodman suggests, is to defend Tiberius’ elevation of Sejanus, who exercised great power in assisting the emperor.Footnote ⁶⁴

I agree with Woodman that both sections address the same concern, and the same role of Sejanus. But I think that Sumner is correct in identifying this as Sejanus’ consulship. In section 127, after his list of historical adiutores, Velleius explains,

How can this be applied to Sejanus, who has had none of these major honours in 30 CE, unless Velleius and his audience know that they are coming? Surely this is the point of the passage – not to excuse Tiberius’ choice of Sejanus as his adiutor, a role that Sejanus had played very publicly for many years, but to justify Sejanus’ coming consulship. The closing sentence of section 128 makes this clear:

This ‘calling’ by the Senate and people, coming just after the list of new men who became consul, must refer to Sejanus’ consular election. The concern is not Sejanus’ fitness to serve as Tiberius’ adiutor; rather, his position as adiutor is used to justify his election to the consulship: Tiberius chose him first, and then the Senate and people follow.

One character is conspicuously missing in sections 127 and 128 if Velleius’ focus is, as Woodman claims, simply on equestrians who rose to power and helped great men: Maecenas. I know that an argumentum ex silentio can be problematic, but in this case it is supported by Woodman's discussion of the letters: ‘The obvious analogy [to Sejanus] is Augustus’ great minister Maecenas, who never sought political advancement but remained an eques throughout his life.’Footnote ⁶⁵ Why would Velleius not mention Maecenas here? Because he, unlike all the men named, had never attained the consulship. This is the concern of the passage.Footnote ⁶⁶

In short, I believe that Woodman is correct that 2.127–8 was ‘inserted to meet an immediate need’. But based on the men named (and not named) in the passage, and the emphasis on honours such as consulships, I believe that this need was not, as Woodman claims, driven by Sejanus’ elevation to the position of adiutor to Tiberius, but by the certainty (either because he had been nominated by the emperor, or after his official election) that he would be consul.Footnote ⁶⁷ This provides a terminus post quem for Velleius’ ‘panegyric’ of Sejanus.Footnote ⁶⁸ But we also have a terminus ante quem: since Velleius praises Asinius Pollio, it must surely date to the time before Gallus fell.Footnote ⁶⁹ This would have been a narrow window in 30 CE, just before Gallus’ imprisonment.

Why the sudden urgency to declare support for Tiberius’ choice? Velleius’ attempts to justify both Sejanus’ election and Tiberius’ backing of his candidacy – historical exempla, Sejanus’ noble family members, his service to the emperor – tell us something about the political climate in Rome at precisely the moment when Gallus was imprisoned. Sejanus had held no magistracies before this, but he would be Tiberius’ consular colleague in 31 CE – an appointment tantamount to succession.Footnote ⁷⁰ This was a turning point, when those senators who were not in Sejanus’ camp would be identified as his rivals – a most dangerous position. Those who had opposed the prefect up to that time (whether by direct action or, more likely, by withholding favour) felt a desperate need to declare their support. Velleius Paterculus was in this group.Footnote ⁷¹ Gallus must have been, too – a partisan of Tiberius whose feelings toward Sejanus were suspect. While he secured honours for the prefect and fought to be part of the embassy, Tiberius attacked him in a letter to the Senate for begrudging Sejanus his friendship with Tiberius. His efforts were not enough to clear him of the charge of resenting the prefect or attempting to supplant him. As a result, Gallus fell, along with Syriacus and other men — perhaps even Velleius himself.Footnote ⁷²

We can see, then, that honours for the prefect such as those that Gallus proposed, or praise for the emperor's selection of Sejanus such as Velleius wrote, need not have indicated true support for the novus homo. It could have been (as we can confirm with Velleius) just the opposite, as enemies of Sejanus clambered to redeem themselves. This would explain why Tiberius accused Gallus of envy or hatred of Sejanus, precisely when Gallus had proposed extravagant honours for the prefect. It would also explain why a number of senators died in 30 CE, but Sejanus’ star kept rising: they were not condemned for attempting to elevate him, but for undermining him. And, finally, how Gallus could be a supporter of Tiberius but still face his wrath. As we have seen, invidia of the amicitia between Tiberius and Sejanus was considered an attack on the emperor himself.