[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

On the other hand, if philosophers came to Rome and practised
their philosophy  with insolence and defiance (Seneca, Epistulae
Morales 103.5), they were in danger of being destroyed. It was ever
a matter of emphasis or discretion. Stoic philosophers had no quarrel
with the concept of monarchy; thus Seneca criticized the murder of
Caesar Brutus was acting contrary to the teachings of Stoicism if
he feared the name of king, for the best condition of the state is
under a just king (rex iustus: De Ben. 2.20.2). But not everyone
would have agreed on what constituted the latter. Briefly, aspects of
Stoicism that could cause problems for an adherent included their
cult of Cato, any open display of free speech, any criticism of the
imperial government and obvious withdrawal from public life.133 So
Dio cites as one of the reasons for the death of Senecio in 93 was
that  he stood for no office after the quaestorship (67.13.2).
Late in 93 (Ep. 3.11.2 3),134 not long after the death of Agricola
(Agr. 45) on 23 August,135 seven people were brought to trial, probably
for making derogatory remarks either on the principate or on the
Flavian dynasty or else on Domitian himself.136 Three were put to
death, Herennius Senecio and two senators Arulenus Rusticus and
Helvidius (Priscus) whose long-attested connections with executed
members of the opposition had not deterred Domitian in fact, both
had received suffect consulships from him, Arulenus most recently, in
the previous year. The four other accused were exiled and their
possessions confiscated (Ep. 7.19.6) Arulenus s brother (Junius
Mauricus) and wife (Gratilla) together with that  tedious pair 137 Arria
and Fannia (mother and daughter, wives of Thrasea Paetus and the
elder Helvidius Priscus). Some of the accused were but part of a long-
standing family tradition of hostility towards the principate, whatever
the dynasty: Arria s mother (i.e. Fannia s grandmother) was the wife
of Claudius s victim, A.Caecina Paetus (PIR2 A 1140, C 103), whilst
Fannia was the daughter of Thrasea Paetus (C 1187) who perished in
Nero s reign, wife of the elder Helvidius Priscus (H 59) whom
Vespasian had put to death and stepmother of Domitian s consular
122
ADMINISTRATION II
victim, Helvidius (Priscus). Fannia s exile in 93 was her third (Ep.
7.19.4)! On the other hand, the not normally patient Domitian had
just awarded consulships not only to Helvidius and Arulenus, but in
that very year, 93, to T.Avidius Quietus, another attested friend of
Thrasea Paetus, Arria and Fannia (Ep. 6.29.1, 9.13.16), whilst, earlier
in the reign, he had similarly honoured Helvidius s son-in-law
Herennius Pollio (AD 85) and had made Arria s brother, the aged
senator C.Laecanius Bassus Caecina Paetus, assistant to the curator
aquarum.138 In 93, they must have provoked him beyond endurance.
The accounts of the charges provided by the sources are not
consistent: Suetonius is the only one to claim that Arulenus was
accused of having published eulogies of both Thrasea and Helvidius
(Dom. 10.3), whereas others state that Herennius Senecio was the one
to praise Helvidius (Agr. 2.1, Ep. 7.19.5 and Dio 67.13.2). On the
other hand, they do make it clear that, in essence, the major charge
was that they had published attacks on the dynasty, or had aided such
publication: at Fannia s trial, for instance, she was obliged to admit
that she had lent her husband s diaries to Senecio (Ep. 7.16.5).139
Consistent with this interpretation are a number of other passages
from Suetonius, suggesting that, as time went on, Domitian became
less able to cope with criticism, especially if it were directed in any
way against his position as emperor. At Dom. 8.3, Domitian as
censor punished libels on prominent people by destroying the
offending works140 and issuing the writer with a censorial ignominia.
The date is unknown, but at least he was still acting as censor as late
as 93, since he then expelled Caecilius Rufinus from the senate for
 acting and dancing (8.3; Dio 67.13.1). On the other hand, at 12.2,
in reference to the emperor s confiscations, we are told that  it was
enough to allege any action or word whatsoever derogatory to the
majesty [maiestas] of the emperor : so, if the confiscations began not
long after the currency devaluation of 85, we may well be able to
assign a very approximate date to Domitian s hardening attitude.141
The change was obvious. He began to place less reliance on censorial
ignominia and more on the deterrent effects of a lex maiestatis. Its
penalties were persuasive. At 11.2 3, Suetonius has Domitian
referring to the fate of those guilty of maiestas: they should be
punished more maiorum, i.e.  in the ancient way . Not even Nero
knew what that meant when told that the senate had recommended
it for him; and, on being informed that the victim was stripped,
fastened by the neck to a wooden fork and flogged to death, he
thought that suicide was preferable (Nero 49.2).
123
EMPEROR DOMITIAN
Precise details exist of Domitian s harshness when faced with
personal attacks. Suetonius reports (10.1) that Hermogenes of Tarsus
was executed because of certain figurae (i.e.  indirect attacks ) in his
history and that the slaves who copied it out were crucified. Again,
at the gladiatorial games (munera), the father of a family made the
mistake of supporting the Thracians (whom Domitian despised:
hence Martial 9.68.7 and 14.213) and then he compounded his error
by claiming that the munerarius was biased (10.1). Now the munera
at this period were usually the responsibility of the quaestor, but, on
this occasion, the munerarius may have been the emperor himself;
for, according to Suetonius (4.1), Domitian could be  persuaded to
provide gladiators, at his own expense, for the last event of the day.
The unwise spectator was thrown to the dogs, with the following
sign attached to his back  A Thracian supporter who spoke
impiously (10.1). Much the same version appears in Pliny ( no one
[under Trajan] risked the old charge of impietas if he disliked a
gladiator : Pan. 33.3), though, with one variant, the garrulous
spectator was burned alive.142 Then, at 33.4, Pliny accuses Domitian
of  using the arena to collect charges of maiestas .
The pattern seems clear. Early in the reign he was moderates in
various ways, but soon found that he was unable to mollify or even
cope with those who disagreed with his vision of what the empire,
its leader and its capital should be. In particular, he ruthlessly
suppressed any criticism from members of the aristocracy, whether
or not they happened to be Stoics.
 Intellectual opposition [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]