Tacitus, Annales, I, 74: The Case of Granius Marcellus

Author(s): Ranon Katzoff

Source: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 92, No. 4 (Oct., 1971), pp. 680-684
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/292672 .
Accessed: 31/07/2013 14:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
American Journal of Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:18:00 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TACITUS, ANNALES, I, 74: THE CASE OF
GRANIUS MARCELLUS.*

At the trial of Granius Marcellus for lese-majesty in 15 A. D.,

as described by Tacitus (Ann., I, 74), Tiberius suddenly lost
his temper and proclaimed that he would vote openly and under
oath. Precisely what it was that angered the emperor and,
correspondingly, how he intended to vote have been the subject
of varying interpretations. An examination of the arguments
and of details of the incident which seem to have been over-
looked may help clarify the case. It will also, hopefully, show
the account to be characteristic of Tacitus' handling of his
material.
To recount the case briefly, Marcellus was charged by his
main prosecutor, Caepio Crispinus, with having slandered
Tiberius. A second accuser, Romanus Hispo, added that a
statue of Marcellus was placed higher than that of the Caesars,
and that having removed the head from a statue of Augustus,
Marcellus replaced it with a head of Tiberius. At this point
Tiberius flared up enraged and made the declaration mentioned
above. Cn. Piso then asked Tiberius when he intended to vote,
for if first, Piso would know how to vote, but if last, Piso would
run the risk of voting the wrong way. Tiberius immediately
withdrew his declaration, and Marcellus was acquitted.
Several scholars maintained that what angered Tiberius was
the frivolity of the charges brought against Marcellus, and,
accordingly, that Tiberius intended to vote for acquittal.1 Others
asserted that Tiberius was angered at the offenses of the defend-
ant and planned to vote for condemnation.2 Yet others think
that how Tiberius intended to vote cannot be determined.2
* I wish to thank
my colleague Professor Stephen Daitz for reading
the manuscript.
1Frank Burr Marsh, The Reign of Tiberius (Oxford, 1931), p. 110;
M. P. Charlesworth, C. A. H., X (1934), p. 628; Robert Samuel Rogers,
Criminal Trials and Criminal Legislation under Tiberius (Monographs
of the American Philological Association, VI [Middletown, 1935]), p.
10; N. P. Miller, Tacitus, Annals, Book I (London, 1959), ad loc.
Erich Koestermann, Historia, IV (1955), pp. 85-6; D. C. A. Shotter,
(. d R., XIII (1966), p. 208.
8B. Walker, The Annals of Tacitus: A Study in the Writing of

680

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:18:00 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TACITUS, " ANNALES," I, 74. 681

The argument for the first position seems to rest primarily on

the fact that Tiberius, as we are told in the preceding chapter
(73), dismissed as frivolous two similar accusations. However,
this support is insufficient. Since Tacitus is describing the
growth of the scourge of treason charges, there must have been
some point at which Tiberius began to take the charges seriously.
The question is whether this is the first such case. Secondly, the
charges against Marcellus are not in fact identical to those in
chapter 73, and though the distinctions may not seem substantial
to moderns, they may have to Tiberius.4 Another argument
used in support of this interpretation is the fact that Marcellus
was ultimately acquitted.5 However, this overlooks an essen-
tial point-that Tiberius had a change of heart after hearing
Piso's question (paenitentia).
The change of heart should in fact serve as the key to
Tiberius' original intentions. After he changed his mind, we
are told, Tiberius tulit absolvi reum. These words leave some
ambiguity. Most commentators took them to mean that Tiberius
voted, or moved, that the defendant be acquitted, understanding
sententiam after tulit.6 Others understood them to mean that
Tiberius patiently allowed the Senate to acquit the defendant.7
In either case we get the same result. By the first interpreta-
tion, Tiberius in the end still voted openly. His change of mind,
then, must have been on the substance of the vote. If he finally
voted acquittal, he must have originally intended to condemn.
By the second interpretation, he indeed did finally vote secretly,
if at all. Since, however, Tacitus says that Tiberius patiently
allowed the Senate to acquit, Tacitus must have meant that
Tiberius prior to his paenitentia would have preferred to con-
History (Manchester,21960), p. 91; Kurt von Fritz, . P., LII (1957),
p. 90.
'This point also undercuts Koestermann's argument, p. 86, that
Tiberius could not have considered the charges against Marcellus frivo-
lous since Tiberius' usual response to frivolous charges was ironic
repartee. However, Tiberius could just as well have found the charges
substantially more frivolous as substantially more damaging.
6Miller, ad loc.
6 For justification of the accusative and infinitive construction, K.
Nipperdey-G. Andresen (Berlin,11 1915) and Furneaux (Oxford,2
1896), ad loc.
7Koestermann, p. 87, n. 35, and his commentary (Heidelberg, 1963),
ad loc.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:18:00 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
682 RANON KATZOFF.

demn. This much, then, can be taken as certain, that in the

story told by Tacitus, Tiberius became angry at Marcellus and
was prepared to condemn him.
What, then, in the charges against Marcellus so angered
Tiberius ? Koestermann 8 and von Fritz 9 suggest that Tiberius
was probably angered especially by the charge of Crispinus.
This has the advantage of tying the case closer to Tacitus'
earlier intimation that Tiberius was responsible for prosecutions
on grounds of mere dicta as against facta (72). However,
Tacitus has not refrained in chapter 73 from citing cases which
had nothing to do with slander at all, and similarly the slander
need not be the main stimulus to Tiberius' anger here.
Walker compares our case to that of Votienus Montanus
(Ann., IV, 42), where Tiberius heard the alleged slanders
against himself recited in detail and demanded an opportunity
to clear himself of the slander.10 However, comparison with this
case is more instructive for the differences than for the simi-
larities. In the Montanus case Tiberius' response to slanders
was a desire to rebut them, and not even Tacitus says that he
demanded the condemnation of the alleged slanderer. If what
Tiberius wanted was to rebut the charges it is by no means clear
how proclaiming he would vote openly would serve his purpose.
The most serious objection to these interpretations, however,
lies in the words ad quod exarsit. Since Tiberius lost his temper
the words must refer not to the entire proceedings but to a
particular point in time. This point must be the immediately
preceding charge, the abuse of the statue of Augustus.ll
What, then, was there in the abuse of the statue that so
angered Tiberius? Shotter properly puts considerable emphasis
on Tiberius' reverential attitude to Augustus and his resent-
ment of the disrespect shown to Augustus' memory by the muti-
lation of the statue. There is also considerable evidence that
abuse of statues of emperors was taken seriously from the time of
Augustus on.12 In particular, according to Suetonius (Tib., 58),
8
P. 85, n. 32.
*P. 90.
0op. 91.
1 Shotter, pp. 207-8.
12 For Augustus, the second Cyrene edict, S. E. G., IX, 8 = F. I. R. A.,
I, 68, lines 52-3. Subsequently, Dig., XLVIII, 4, 4, 1; 5, pr.-2; 6; 7, 4.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:18:00 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TACITlUS," ANNALES," I, 74. 683

a man was in fact condemned for removing the head from a

statue of Augustus and substituting that of another.
It seems to have gone unnoticed that our case has a particular
twist-the head which replaced Augustus' was not that of
merely another man, but of Tiberius himself. This introduces
an entirely new dimension into Marcellus' action. During the
lifetime of Augustus his statue could be regarded either as that
of the current emperor or as that of the first emperor. In line
with the former view Marcellus acted perfectly reasonably when
at the accession of Tiberius he substituted the head of the new
emperor for the old. In fact, the action would be less an affront
to the memory of Augustus than a flattery of Tiberius. It was
Marcellus' misfortune that the latter view prevailed. It was his
further misfortune that Tiberius was annoyed by excessive
flattery. It was this flattery, perhaps, combined as it was with
the displacement of Augustus, that triggered Tiberius' anger.
This complication explains the dilemma of the senators, ex-
pressed by Piso. If they acquitted, they would seem too casual
about maiestas; if they condemned, they would be condemning
flattery of Tiberius. It was one thing for Tiberius to refuse
flattery; it was quite another for the senate to refuse it for him.13
I suggest, then, that what we have before us originated as an
anecdote about Tiberius' unassuming democratic-civilis or
demotikos in the ancient writers (Tac., Ann., I, 72; Suet., Tib.,
26; Dio Cass., LVII, 8, 3)-nature. Many such anecdotes were
collected by Suetonius (Tib., 26-32) and Dio Cassius (LVII,
7-11). Tacitus, hostile as he is to Tiberius, includes few of
them, and those he does bring in he undercuts by the context in
which he places them. For example, he reports two such items at
the beginning of chapter 72 (cf. Suet., Tib., 26, 2)-that Ti-
berius refused the title pater patriae and the oath on his acta-
but follows them immediately with the assertion that Tiberius
did not convince people thereby of his civilis animus.l4 Two
more such anecdotes-Tiberius' dismissal of charges of maiestas

' Writers who did not take the flattery into account found the
Senate's dilemma weak, since it could safely condemn even if the em-
peror acquitted. Koestermann, p. 86; and commentary (above, note
7), ad loc.; von Fritz, p. 90. That the charge was brought altogether
constitutes no objection, since Hispo could have been caught unawares.
14Koestermann (above, note 7), ad loo.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:18:00 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
684 RANON KATZOFF.

against two defendants (I, 73)-are introduced by the state-

ment that these show the beginnings of the terrible scourge,
and the craftiness of Tiberius by which treason trials began,
were repressed, and then increased again.
A comparison of the treatment of the episode of Haterius by
Tacitus (I, 13 end) and Suetonius (Tib., 27) is revealing.
Haterius had asked Tiberius an embarrassing question in the
second Senate session after Augustus' death. Going later to
Tiberius' palace to apologize he grovelled at the emperor's
knees, causing Tiberius to trip. Suetonius includes the story
in a series of anecdotes illustrating how Tiberius loathed flat-
tery, and adds the detail that Tiberius tripped because he drew
back hastily from Haterius. Tacitus, on the other hand, omits
any mention of flattery or Tiberius' dislike of it, and instead
presents it as an example of the danger that accompanied any
meeting with the tyrant. He instead adds the detail (it is in
fact the main clause of the sentence in indirect discourse) that
Haterius was nearly killed by the guards when Tiberius tripped,
that Tiberius was not impressed with the danger to Haterius,
and that only Julia's intervention saved Haterius.
The case of Granius MIarcellusshows the same treatment.
The anecdote could have illustrated Tiberius' civilis animus in
his strong objections to extreme flattery and his quick soften-
ing at Piso's criticism of his reaction. Instead Tacitus, by the
context and the emphasis, has made it into an anecdote depicting
the horrors of the treason trials and informers, and the danger
to defendants from Tiberius' explosive nature.

RANON KATZOFF.
BAR-ILANUNIVERSITY,
ISRAEL.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:18:00 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions