It does not seem accidental that Tiberius needed this principally politically prompted lawsuit, which played a critical part in strengthening the power of the emperor reigning as Augustus’ successor. Indeed, Augustus’ power and governing system were built partially on his unique persona that Tiberius could not inherit. Tiberius, of course, could not be the exact same emperor. “Above all legal and other decrees stands the auctoritas; the virtue of auctoritas that Augustus created, founding it on his own superiority.”57 For this reason, one can see that, after year 14, the new princeps at first had to fight a crisis of legitimacy. The reason for this crisis was that the pillars of the establishment were merely informal and therefore had to be strengthened.58 With these political ideas in mind, one can see why an intent to question or simply enquire about the future of the sovereign was unacceptable. At a certain level, magic was unappealing and a matter of ridicule. As shown in the example of Thrasyllus or, later, of Nero, however, even the empire’s first citizen applied it. Consequently, its role deserves to be examined with distinction. The lawsuits discussing treason, deemed by Tacitus as “grave destruction”, were excellent tools to suppress those who partook in sorcery. The Annales is the most detailed work in regards to the lese-majesty lawsuits in the history of the early principate, and is both a key starting and orientation point.
Quod maxime exitiabile tulere illa tempora, cum primores senatus infimas etiam delationes exercerent, alii propalam, multi per occultum; neque discerneres alienos a coniunctis, amicos ab ignotis, quid repens aut vetustate obscurum: perinde in foro, in convivio, quaqua de re locuti incusabantur, ut quis praevenire et reum destinare properat, pars ad subsidium sui, plures infecti quasi valetudine et contactu. Tac. ann. 6,7,2.
This quote is a fitting reference to the general, plague-like spread of one of the most negative features of the realm of Emperor Tiberius. The atmosphere of fear and distrust was ever growing and became almost unanimous in the leading layer, and the opposition of the emperor was either destroyed or wrapped in silence. At the same time, as we observe in connection with Libo Drusus, these lawsuits provided the elite with a chance for promotion, of financial gain, and a pretext for retribution. The proceedings against Libo (legem maiestas reduxerat, Tac. ann. 1,72,2) lay bare Tiberius’ incentive in an evil cause, as he had arguably
57 SYME (2002: 322).
58 HEGYI W.(2011:482).
Krisztián Márványos
176
determined Libo’s death.59 The emperor adamantly refused to show any sign of mercy, and it was only when his soldiers surrounded the house that Libo committed suicide.60 Tiberius deferred the blame to the defendant, revealing “the irony of a masked tyranny, where the utmost victim is forced to wear the facade of a tyrant.”61
It was my intention to demonstrate that Libo Drusus’ life is a paradigmatic example of the tragic victims of the show trials, the dishonouring cases in the era of the Roman emperors in the first century.
The evolution of show trials and the hardships of astrologers likewise, are important aspects in the history of this period. Despite the speed with which the process was conducted, I believe that the Libo Drusus trial was the first serious lese-majesty lawsuit and, as a result, is a complex incident.
The study of the case—mainly through Tacitus’ narrative—elucidates us on matters of sorcerers, criminal lawsuits, and the power struggles of the second emperor of the principate (two years after Augustus), and, more importantly, provides a greater understanding of the whole period.
References
BAGNALL 2012 = R. S. BAGNALL et al. (ed.): The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Malden 2012.
BAUMAN 1974 = R. A. BAUMAN: Impietas in Principem. A study of treason against the Roman emperor with special reference to the first century A. D. München 1974.
BORZSAK 1970 = BORZSAK I.: Tacitus: Annales I–III. (Auctores Latini XIII.). Budapest 1970.
CIL 12 1893 = J. H. W. Henzen et al. (ed.): Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (Vol. 12). Berlin 1893.
CIL 9 1883 = T. Mommsen (ed.): Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (Vol.
9). Berlin 1883.
CRAMER 1954 = F.H.CRAMER: Astrology in Roman Law and Politics.
Philadelphia 1954.
EHRENBERG–JONES 1976 = V. EHRENBERG – A. H. M. JONES (eds.):
Documents illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius. Oxford 1976.
FÖGEN 1993 = M.T.FÖGEN: Die Enteignung der Wahrsager. Studien zum kaiserlichen Wissensmonopol in der Spätantike. Frankfurt am Main 1993.
59 WALKER (1952: 94).
60 GOODYEAR (1981: 278).
61 PETTINGER (2012: 215).
177 GOODYEAR 1981 = F. R. D. GOODYEAR (ed.): The Annals of Tacitus.
Books 1–6.Cambridge1981.
HAJDU 2013=HAJDU P.: A mágia tilalma Rómában. In: Á. M. Nagy (ed.):
Az Olympos mellett. Mágikus hagyományok az ókori Mediterráneumban. Budapest 2013, 389–394.
HEGYI W. 2011 =HEGYI W. GY.: Római történelem. In: Németh Gy. – Hegyi W. Gy.: Görög–római történelem. Budapest 2011, 323–565.
KOESTERMANN 1955 = E. KOESTERMANN: Die Majestätsprozesse unter Tiberius. Historia 4 (1955) 72–106.
LEON 1957 = E.F.LEON: Notes on the Background and Character of Libo Drusus. CJ 53 (1957) 77–80.
LEVICK 2005 = B.LEVICK: Tiberius the Politician. London –New York 2005.
MACMULLEN 1966 = R. MACMULLEN: Enemies of the Roman Order.
Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire. Cambridge (Massachusetts)1966.
PETTINGER 2012 = A.PETTINGER: The Republic in Danger. Drusus Libo and the Succession of Tiberius. Oxford 2012.
POTTER 1994 = D. S. POTTER: Prophets and Emperors. Human Divine Authority from Augustus to Theodosius. Cambridge (Massachusetts) 1994.
RIDLEY 1988 = R.T.RIDLEY: History of Rome: a documented analysis.
Rome 1988.
ROGERS 1935 = R.S.ROGERS: Criminal Trials and Criminal Legislation under Tiberius. Middletown 1935.
RUTLEDGE 2001 = S. H. RUTLEDGE: Imperial Inquisitions. Prosecutors and Informants from Tiberius to Domitian. London –New York2001.
SEAGER 2005 = R.SEAGER: Tiberius. Oxford 2005.
SHOTTER 1972 = D. C. A. SHOTTER: The Trial of M. Scribonius Libo Drusus. Historia 21 (1972) 88–98.
SYME 1958 = R.SYME: Tacitus. Oxford 1958.
—.1989 = R.SYME: The Augustan Aristocracy. Oxford 1989.
—.2002 = R.SYME: The Roman Revolution. Oxford 2002.
TALBERT 1984 = R. J. A. TALBERT: The Senate of Imperial Rome.
Princeton 1984.
VÁRHELYI 2010 = VÁRHELYI ZS.: The Religion of Senators in the Roman Empire. Power and the Beyond. Cambridge 2010.
WALKER 1952 = B. WALKER: The Annals of Tacitus. A Study in the Writing of History. Manchester 1952.
WIEDEMANN 2006 = T. E. J.WIEDEMANN: Tiberius to Nero. In: A. K.
Bowman et al. (eds.): The Cambridge Ancient History (Vol. 10).
Cambridge 2006, 198–255.
Krisztián Márványos
178
WEINRIB 1968a = E.J. WEINRIB: The Family Connections of M. Livius Drusus Libo. HSPh 72 (1968) 247–278.
—. 1968b = E. J. WEINRIB: The Prosecution of Roman magistrates.
Phoenix 22 (1968) 32–56.