The republic had seen senators ply their rhetorical skills in cases concerning provincial maladministration, corruption and violence in political life, conspiracy against the state, even treason (see Alexander 1990 for a summary). While the advent of the principate generally eliminated corrupt electioneering, there was still the need to check violence against the state and provincial mismanagement. On top of that, more mundane matters intruded, such as debates on luxury laws. New to the senate were debates and discussions over honors to the emperor and his family. In addition, new laws governing sexual behavior, marriage, and privileges and obligations concerning (what we would call) reproductive rights were put on the books (see, e. g., Tac. Ann. 3.25-8). Tacitus’ Annales in particular present us with a broad survey of such matters as they came before the senate. In the first book he relates a senatorial debate concerning imperial titles and privileges in the wake of Augustus’ death and Tiberius’ succession (1.14; cf. 1.72). Later, and more ominously (in Tacitus’ view), was the attempt to reintroduce the vague lex de maiestate (1.72-4), though initial attempts to prosecute under it found little success (Rutledge 2001: 87-9; for a detailed study see
Bauman 1967). In these chapters too is the first attempt to prosecute for showing disrespect toward the imperial godhead, although this and other such attempts also met with little success. There is as well the first case of provincial maladministration in Tacitus (against Caepio Crispinus for peculation in Bithynia, Ann. 1.74). Such a charge, with the occasional accusation of maiestas added for good measure (see, e. g., the case of Gaius Silanus, 3.66-9) is one that will come up repeatedly in the pages of Tacitus, and Pliny as well. The charge against Caepio included verbal abuse against the princeps; such charges, it is worth noting, rarely entailed any legal consequences except in exceptional circumstances. Book 2 contains a dense series of court cases and senatorial debates compressed into six chapters: discussions concerning luxury laws (2.33), the excessive zeal of advocates (2.34), the terms for holding the magistracies (2.36), all are recorded under the year 16 ce. So too is the first detailed trial of a would-be conspirator in the senate, that of Marcus Scribonius Libo Drusus, tried not only for conspiracy, but for magic practices and the consultation of astrologers as well (2.27-31). That same book also recounts the first trial of a well-connected imperial woman for adultery, Appuleia Varilla (2.50).
Once Tacitus has finished book 2 he has presented to us what were to prove the main subjects of oratory in the senate. Everything else - in Tacitus and in our other sources - is mere variation: protecting provincials, trying senators and their families for various crimes (in Tacitus frequently of a sexual nature), treason, conspiracy (which often included charges of magic and astrology), social legislation, the petty business of the state, the awarding of privileges, titles and honors to the emperor, his family, friends and servants - such was the stuff of political discourse in that august body. In addition there were the speeches of thanks delivered in the senate and customary on the assumption of office awarded by the emperor (see Plin. Ep. 2.1), exemplified by Pliny’s Panegyricus. Finally, it is worth noting that some subjects were, it appears, off limits, deemed too trivial for the senate’s dignitas. Hence in 58 ce when Thrasea Paetus tried to take issue with a decree allowing Syracuse to sponsor a show exceeding the legal number of gladiators, he was criticized for making an issue out of a trifling subject (Tac. Ann. 13.49). Not everything was fair game.
Discussion and debate naturally took place frequently in the emperor’s absence. However, emperors did preside over senatorial debates occasionally. Concerning Gaius we have little information. Nero famously did not, while Domitian by contrast did (Tac. Agr. 45). Tiberius and Claudius, by all accounts, were relatively active participants in senatorial debates and court cases. And the princeps - qua princeps - always held greater auctoritas; his opinion usually carried the day, although, as noted above, it did not stifle entirely the ability of others to express more independent views. There was room for give and take. Since space does not permit a comprehensive examination of the extent to which the principes participated in and influenced all senatorial debates, let us take the case of Tiberius, since his activity is documented by Tacitus in this area in some detail.
First, however, a brief caveat is necessary. It is difficult to tell from Tacitus’ text whether Tiberius is actually present on certain occasions. While the text often seems to imply that he is, we cannot always be sure. For example, at the conclusion of the debates on the luxury laws Tacitus states: adiecerat et Tiberius non id tempus censurae nec, si quid in moribus labaret, defuturum corrigendi auctorem (‘‘Tiberius also had added that it was not the time for a censorship nor, if morals should slip, would an authority for their correction prove wanting,’’ Ann. 2.33). Now adiecerat could imply Tiberius’ physical presence (expressing his opinion then and there orally), but it could also imply that he communicated his opinion through a missive, as emperors were wont to do from time to time (see, e. g., 3.35), and the text leaves unclear whether Tiberius was physically present or not. Here we are only concerned with instances in which the text notes explicitly the princepd physical presence.
The first example we have occurs soon after the death of Augustus in 14 ce, when Tiberius vetoed senatorial proposals that attempted to grant Livia the title ‘‘Mother of her Country,’’ ( mater patriae, 1.14; cf. 1.72). The next time we find Tiberius in person is the following year, when he was embarrassed after he threatened to give an opinion on a case of repetundae and maiestas. This drove Calpurnius Piso to inquire: ‘‘ quo’’ inquit ‘‘loco censebis, Caesar? si primus, habebo quod sequar:si post omnis, vereor ne inprudens dissentiam’’ (‘‘In what order will you cast your vote, Caesar? If first, I’ll have something to follow; if after everyone, I fear lest I unwisely dissent,’’ 1.74). Tiberius dismissed the case of maiestaS; the case for repetundae was referred to a special judicial board dealing with such matters. We have already discussed above the next case, that of Piso forcing Tiberius to degrade and embarrass himself before the senate in 16 ce. The next year, according to Tacitus, he heard in person the prosecution of Appuleia Varilla for treason and adultery. He answered points of law put to him by the consul and apparently insisted that the treason law be dismissed and that her sexual offense be remitted to her family for judgment. We know in 20 ce that he was on hand for the trial of Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso, charged in the death of Germanicus, and for sedition and for entering Syria with armed force (3.12). According to Tacitus (whose presentation of this case is highly problematic; see Damon 1999), Tiberius framed the terms of the debate and dictated meditato temperamento (‘‘with studied moderation’’) the question at hand. In Tacitus’ version Tiberius certainly swayed the outcome of the case, something that is perfectly credible considering that emperors did not look kindly on provincial mismanagement.
Tiberius was equally influential in the next case where he was present, that of Gaius Silanus in 22 ce, a governor of Asia who was patently guilty by all accounts of maladministration, though Tiberius dismissed the maiestas charge against him (3.66-9). The case is remarkable for Tiberius’ participation, where he read letters from Augustus, thereby citing precedent to bolster the prosecution’s case. However, he intervened in favor of moderation and clemency when a debate ensued concerning oversight of the character of potential governors (3.69). The trial of Lucius Ennius came soon after, in which the emperor, sitting in the senate, moved to crush a charge of maiestas against the defendant on the grounds that he had melted down an effigy of the princeps (3.70). Two years later, in 24 ce, we hear that he was actively involved in the case of Plautius Silvanus, a senator who had murdered his wife, even going to the house to investigate the scene of the murder himself (4.22).
Also in 22, after an alleged conspiracy by Vibius Serenus was uncovered, Serenus’ accomplice, a certain cornutus, was implicated and committed suicide before his case finished (3.30). It was then proposed as a general principle that the rewards for the accusers be forfeited in cases of maiestas where the accused anticipated the verdict by suicide. The question was debated and Tiberius (extraordinarily according to Tacitus) intervened with the remark: subverterent potius iura quam custodes eorum amoverent (‘‘better that the laws be overturned than their guardians removed,’’ 4.30).
The accusers were to have their rewards. The next case he presided over in person, according to Tacitus, was that of Votienus Montanus, where he was subjected to hearing insults hurled at him in private in a public setting (4.42). The imputations much agitated Tiberius, who openly declared his intent to clear himself, and Montanus was condemned for maiestas. Montanus’ is the last case we have where we can be assured of Tiberius’ presence.
The overall record appears to be one in which the princeps’ authority in senatorial debate held sway. There was, however, the opportunity for the prosecutor to repeat abuse of the emperor in court, for which he and his witnesses had immunity. In addition, there was the possibility of sometimes contradicting imperial will; debate and discussion was clearly influenced, though by no means stifled by the emperor’s presence.
World History
