Essay: History is all about perspective

Opposing the Emperor: A senatorial (Pre)occupation?

What does it mean to be ‘a good senator’ under the republic?

From whose perspective?

Defining someone as “good” in any capacity invariably involves the question of perspective. The question could easily be construed as several different questions: What makes a good senator from the perspective of other senators, from the perspective of the Emperor, from that of the historians and sources, through whose eyes we primarily see them judged, or from the perspective of the common Roman. These are only some of the groups who would no doubt have had very different opinions of what made a “good” senator. A similar concern is in what capacity we are judging them. The Roman belief in an unchanging character meant that any senator’s personality and personal life were constantly under consideration, and any action taken was seen as an extension of this personality. Similarly questions of their birth and heritage were important in order for them to gain a chance to show their merit, and personal qualities were deduced in part from family lineage. All of this needed to be considered before questions of aptitude came into play, and needs to be kept in mind.

From the eyes of the Emperor

To the student of Neronian history especially we are unlikely to classify senators who were on good terms with Nero as the “good” ones. Are sources depict mostly vile sycophancy and cowardice on the part of those senators who Nero himself was most pleased with. But in this case and others what was it that made a good senator from the top down perspective, through the eyes of the Emperor? Being of no threat was obviously a primary concern under all emperors – active hostilities and opposition of a conspiracy level was always, of course, condemned. But in some cases this extended into the world of verbal and literary opposition, which was construed as and indeed often could have been incitement to more serious opposition. Even the spoken word amongst educated philosophical senators was a serious concern for the Emperor, as MacMullen has written, “Eloquentia and Libertas brought tyrannicide to mind. That was not the right kind of thing for senators to discuss. It connected dinner parties and street corners, where Tiberius saw the origins of opposition, with more business like meetings, and ultimately with rebellion itself”[1]. The case of Verbal treason held against Antistius under Nero, although questionably created to provide the emperor with a situation in which to display his ‘Clementia’, provides one of the first cases of verbal treason against the Emperor being considered worthy of a trial. Antistius wrote verses satirizing the Emperor and chose to recite them at a dinner party. A senator, one Marcellus moved for the most severe punishment, execution. Thrasea Paetus, one of Tacitus' and our Heroes, used his own persuasive skills to dissuade this motion. Nero’s response is ambiguous. He makes it clear that he himself would not have allowed any worse punishment to be administered, but Tacitus tells us that he is “clearly offended”. In some readings it appears the offence is the Senates decision not to execute the man who has insulted him, something he would have himself disallowed, but would have liked them to have wanted. Other interpretations (for example Griffin, in her book “Nero: The End of a Dynasty) suggest that the annoyance comes from Thrasea thwarting Nero’s plan to display his own mercy. One can easily perceive a little of both scenarios. But what is clear here is that, from Nero’s perspective, the Marcellus’ behaviour was “good” in that it paid homage to him, but Thrasea’s behaviour was not, in that it irked in one way or another his vanity and his plans. Still, the decision made by Thrasea was, even in Nero’s mind, the right one, and our sources certainly depict Thrasea as the “good” senator, mild and temperate, whilst Marcellus is apparently vying for blood. Already we come across the difficulties of perspective in this question, made doubly complex by an emperor who creates such complex situations.

In writing too these issues became dangerous in the eyes of many emperors. Lucan’s relationship with Nero is a strong example, where something in his Civil Wars, perhaps combined with his walking out of one of Nero’s performances in 62/63, turned what had once been a close friendship of peers into the torture and forced suicide of a poet perhaps considered to be creating and verbalising opposition. Despite his flattery of Nero at 1.33-66, considered by some[2] to be genuine, one might not be surprised at Nero’s reaction given some of the content we come across in the Civil Wars, which concern themselves with Caesar’s war against Pompey. At 7.640 Lucan tells us that after Caesar’s victory “for all the world’s eternity we are prostrated. Ever age which will suffer slavery is conquered by these swords” and at 7.645-6, “If, The fortune, you intended to give a master / to those of us born after battle, you should have also given us chance to fight”. The sentiment is clear. Lucan and his age live in “slavery” under a tyranny won by Caesar and continued now by Nero, but they do not have the privilege of open war. Perhaps it is not that surprising that Nero was upset.

As we see here, however, the written word even when elusive in referring to current emperors could cause upset by referring to their predecessors and to history that in part mirrors the emperor’s fears. The trial of Aulus Crenutius Cordus under Tiberius “on a previously unheard of charge: praise of Brutus in his ‘History’ and the description of Cassius as ‘the last of the Romans’”[3] is demonstrative of this. Crenutius himself informs us that previously talk of Brutus and Cassius was permitted and that “there has always been complete, uncensored liberty to speak about those whom death has placed beyond hatred or partiality”. Clearly differing amounts of free speech on this matter were desired or permitted under Tiberius as had been under Augustus. Even physically this issue occurred as condemnable behaviour in senators, where in Nero’s reign Longinus, a descendent of Cassius, was indicted before the senate for including in his family imagines that of Cassius with an inscription that read “Leader of the Cause”[4]. MacMullen argues that in this case it didn’t matter that his wealth might have been another incentive, but “what did matter was the popular belief, or mythology, that saw in Republicanism an enemy of the Republic”[5]. So was what the Emperor’s perceived as “bad” behaviour in a senator a belief in the Republic? Was perhaps the concept of “Libertas”, connected with Stoicism and republican thought, considered an idea enemy to the Principate? Certainly in many ways they appear difficult to conciliate, but MacMullen assures us that most of the opposition was not desirous of a return to Republic, but simply a better Emperor. MacMullen writes “As for the Principate...there was an early and almost unanimous agreement that Rome needed it”[6]. What was it then, that the Senators themselves considered good behaviour, whether in opposition to the Principate or not?

Fellow senatorial opinion

This is, of course, strongly affected by the Emperor. What your peers and fellow senators consider to be good behaviour varies as much as the position, influence and freedom of the senate does. Some examples that illustrate these changes are the charges that Pliny and Helvidius Priscus intend to ring against the prosecutors of fellow senators under previous emperors. When Helvidius returned from the exile that his father in law Thrasea’ death had incurred, he “proceeded to impeach Thrasea’s prosecutor, Epirus Marcellus”[7]. We are told by Tacitus that this move divides the Senate – some of them considered it justified, some thought it excessive. Already we perceive that “good” in the eyes of the senate is impractical to apply on behalf of all of them – the Senate was made up of a large number of educated and often free thinking men, what is the likelihood of their being united in thought on any one topic? We are also told that Helvidius dropped the charge under Galba’s reign, but took it up again under Vespasian. Similarly Pliny attempts to bring charges against Helvidius’ own prosecutor Certus, as although many crimes occurred under Domitian’s reign “none seemed so shocking as the violent attack in the senate made by a senator on a fellow senator”[8]. The vague semblance of solidarity here is interesting as surely both Helvidius and Pliny were also culpable of attacking fellow senators, even if it were in retaliation? Nonetheless, Pliny considers Domitian’s death “a truly splendid opportunity for attacking the guilty, avenging the injured, and making oneself known”[9]. His motion to attack Certus receives a very mixed reception in the senate, and although Pliny provides the final image of his having won over the senate to his way of thinking the action against Certus was in fact not taken, and perhaps we are being shown a version of events better suited to Pliny’s self presentation. None the less clear factors in these cases are the reigns of Galba and Nerva, neither of which promoted the punishment of those who benefited from earlier reigns. That Pliny is urged to “Let us survivors live”[10] is surely indication that although every reign begins with promises of this sort, in this reign the emperor’s wishes at a recession of accusations and deaths are shared by those members of the senate who survived. Prosecuting the guilty would of course in many cases be considered crucial behaviour from a “good” senator, but circumstances and Imperial policy affects both the Emperor’s and the Senate’s opinion on matters like this.

From the eyes of the sources

There are general points that most sources and senators who are portrayed therein as “good” tend to agree on. They are mostly Stoic philosophers with a belief in Libertas. This does not, as already discussed, necessarily relate to the freedom of the senate to rule, more to personal freedom and freedom of speech and law. It certainly wasn’t liberal in our sense of the word. The Senate itself was full of the wealthy and well connected, more akin to the perceived “old boy’s network” than to any socialist or left wing political group we might think of. If the desire is to gain a “good” emperor, then how does a “good” senator behave under a “bad” emperor? It is clear that in the eyes of the sources action against a bad emperor or an active lack of support can be well perceived. We have already discussed the literary opposition such as Cremitius, given a warm and positive depiction by Tacitus, who is similarly positive when discussing Helvidius’ blunt and honest oratory that “marked the beginning of great offence – and great glory”[11]. However it is clear that from Tacitus’ perspective action is not always positive, and despite a generally glowing report of Thrasea’s life, death and activities, he is not at all impressed with his open distaste for celebrations of Agrippina’s murder: “It had been the custom of Publius Clodius Thrasea Paetus to pass over flatteries in silence of with curt agreement. But this time he walked out of the senate – thereby endangering himself without bringing general freedom any nearer”[12]. It appears however that active inactivity, as it were, could be positive in Tacitus’ eyes. The rest of Thrasea’s abstinence from the Senate is well perceived to Tacitus, although the conversation he attributes to Nero and Cossutianus Capito demonstrates that this inactivity was certainly not “good” in Nero’s opinion – Thrasea is accused by Capito of inciting party warfare and secession from the government[13]. When Marcellus calls for Thrasea to attend the senate meeting he says “Let him disappear from the country he has long since stopped loving, and now stopped even seeing!”[14], Clearly inaction from this perspective was seen as conscious action of protest against the Principate, and indeed that may well have been what it was. But again these actions are positive in our eyes through Tacitus’ description, and a similar positive stance is put on Agricola’s inaction after his return from Britain. Tacitus tells us he “devoted himself entirely to a life of quiet retirement”[15] to avoid encouraging the distrust and temper of Domitian, who we are told is already threatened by Agricola’s success in Britain[16].

There are, of course, issues concerning this source and other, especially when considering what one should expect of a “good” senator. Tacitus’ portrayal of Marcellus is particularly interesting here. Marcellus in all areas comes across as objectionable. He is the enemy and prosecutor of our hero Thrasea, and he apparently committed all sorts of crimes under the reign of Nero. However, in the same way that Tacitus is lenient on his father in law’s passivity, he writes, although as a defence to an attack from our other hero, Helvidius, a very strong defence for Marcellus’ behaviour. Marcellus responds to Helvidius’ accusations by arguing that the attack on Thrasea did not originate with him, and that “They were all qualified to do homage”. He respected “the constitution devised by their fathers and grandfathers. Earlier times earned his admiration, the present his allegiance. He prayed for good emperors, but took them as they came...his friendship with such an emperor had been just as agonizing an experience for himself as exile had been for others”[17]. Tacitus gives Marcellus the defence of belief in the institution and support for his emperor, qualities that arguably in this passage come across as very “good”. Tacitus also writes a similar apology for Agricola’s inactivity: “Let it be clear to those who insist on admiring disobedience that even under bad emperors men can be great, and that a decent regard for authority, if backed by industry and energy, can reach that peak of distinction which most men attain only by following a perilous course, winning fame, without benefiting their country, by an ostentatious self-martyrdom”[18]. The language used here is in fact reminiscent of that used to disdain Thrasea’s departure from the Senate house at 14.12 (see above). The answer lies in what we know about Tacitus himself, a senator who survived Domitian’s reign and was effectively forced to be involved in things that he was later ashamed of. He writes himself at Agricola 45 that “before long we senators led Helvidius to prison, watched in shame the sufferings of Mauricus and Rusticus, and stained ourselves with Senecio’s innocent blood...The worst of our torments under Domitian was to see him with his eyes fixed upon us”. Tacitus is, of course, riddled with guilt concerning his survival and the things he was party to under Domitian. Indeed it is possible to imagine that guilt was a large factor in Tacitus’ decision to write the ‘Agricola’, his first published work with the ‘Germania’, both for his activities under Domitian and the fact that he hadn’t seen his father in law for many years before his death. Pliny similarly appears to suffer from “survivor’s guilt”, where in letter 3.11 he states that Artemidorus, a philosopher friend of his whom he both visited and leant money too after the banishment of Philosophers from Rome by Domitian in 93, gives him too much credit for his actions. “I have not disgraced myself, but that is all”.

It is clear that even the senators and the sources, these examples obviously a mixture of the two, cannot decide on what action should be taken in these situations. Tacitus’ discrepancies, such as they are, seem to appear because of filial obligations or love or a personal moral quagmire. He is more lenient towards his father in law in many respects, for example concerning his will. He does not admonish Agricola for leaving his estate to Domitian, stating that Domitian was pleased by this compliment not realizing that “no good father would leave property to any emperor except a bad one”[19]. Elsewhere, however, he praises Vetus for making the opposite decision: “Some advised Vetus to name the emperor as his principal heir, thus securing the residue for his grandchildren. But he scorned to spoil what had mostly been a life of freedom by servility at its close”[20]. One cannot blame Tacitus for this discrepancy – both decisions have their merits, and his fondness for his father in law is bound to affect his judgement of him. The concept of a “good senator” in many ways is parallel to the concept of “a good man”. What makes a good man is a question of philosophy, not history, and no one answer can be found. It is no surprise, then, that there is no straightforward answer to the question “What makes a good senator under the Principate”. There are common features, of course, that both the sources and we might perceive as “good”, such as a man’s principles, stoicism in both the ancient and modern sense, and reason and clemency, but again how any man should apply these to the position of senator varies enormously depending on the situation.