There is a view amongst historians198 that in Augustus' last decade all was done to the tune of Tiberius, who returned to Rome after each annual campaign. That would be not unlikely, though the arguments tend to be circular and it was normal for commanders-in-chief to return to Rome between campaigning seasons. The question whether it was Tiberius' tune that was being played is certainly very relevant to the next item in the tale of'passion and polities'. No doubt it ought to have been young Agrippa's privilege to be quaestor and take the troops to Germany; instead, probably in a.d. 6,199 he was removed from Rome to Surrentum, and in a.d. 7 he was repudiated by Augustus and deported to the island of Planasia. In a.d. 8 his sister also, young Iulia, suffered banishment, never to return.200 Scholars deduce treason again, at the heart of the 'divine family': a story going back to 23 b.C., of thirty years of crisis in the 'Party', of the Julian faction's last bid against the, otherwise, now inexorable accession of the hated Claudian. Some speculations on those lines are too close to fiction, but there is a case. Why the exile of Agrippa? He was alleged to have been, or turned into, a cretinous thug; but Germanicus' brother Claudius, spastic and eccentric, though kept out of the limelight, was neither repudiated nor banished: his star was yet to rise. Agrippa, too, had been denied the limelight, being accorded no title of princeps iuventutis and no permission to stand early for office. Was that at Tiberius' behest? Had Agrippa less than mildly suggested that it was not good enough? Suetonius carries a story about a person (of low status) who 'in the name of young Agrippa put out to the public a most bitter letter about him' (Augustus).201 But those who rush to make use of the tale fail to notice its ambiguities: it is not clear whether the biographer meant 'on Agrippa's behalf' or 'pretending it was written by Agrippa', nor whether the letter was supposed to have been a private one that was wrongly made public — and if so to whom it was addressed - or a letter actually addressed to the public.
As for Iulia, the official account was, again, adultery, though with only one partner, Decimus Iunius Silanus - who was merely told that he was no longer a friend of the emperor, which he took as dismissal from Rome.202 She, by contrast, was banished, implacably, for life (and it turned out to be twenty years); she was supported financially - this we must take into account — by Livia Drusilla.203 No less to be taken into account is the identity of Iulia's husband: he was Lucius Aemilius Paullus, who appears in Suetonius' canon of conspirators against Augustus.204 He is there linked with one Plautius Rufus, who reminds historians (though it is a thin point) of the Publius Rufus who is supposed to have spread the revolutionary pamphlets in a.d. 6. Were husband and wife convicted of conspiracy? And of joint, or separate, conspiracies? It has been common to suppose that Paullus was executed, but a strong case has been made against that.205 If he was only banished, that is insufficient punishment for conspiracy; and Iulia's offence is better seen as what it was stated to be. Augustus insisted on the child she bore
"» Veil. Pat. n.112.7.
Ovid, too, had to go, and he, too, was never to be allowed back home.
Suet. Aug. 5 i.i. 202 Unlike Ovid, he was allowed back by Tiberius, Tac. Ann. 111.24.
203 Tac. Ann. iv.71.4. 204 Suet. Aug. 19.1; Syme 1986 (a 95) ch.9.
205 Syme 1986 (a 95) 125-5.
not being allowed to live, and the sharp-eyed Tacitus found no other cat to let out of the bag. Nor is either lulia named in Suetonius' canon of conspirators.
But yet another mysterious set of facts adds fuel to the hypothesis of conspiracy. There were two — or in an ironical sense perhaps three — attempts to achieve a break-out for Agrippa. In Suetonius' conspiracy- list ' Audasius and Epicadus had intended to spirit lulia the daughter and Agrippa the grandson from the islands where they were held to the armies.'[230] There is something amiss with the tale, because by the time Agrippa was sent to his island 'lulia the daughter' had left hers. Perhaps it is a mere slip for 'lulia the granddaughter'; but the elder lulia was still in exile and still a potential focus for dissidence, so the error may be different. In any case, the story reinforces the view that Agrippa was in banishment because he was dangerous; and the danger was to Tiberius. The second story is how, immediately upon Augustus' death, Agrippa's slave Clemens went hotfoot to Planasia but arrived too late, the primum facinus novi principatus having already occurred — and how, two years later, he obtained a following by passing himself off as Agrippa, was arrested and put to death, and care was taken not to probe deeply into what were suspected to be his powerful backers 'in the house of the princeps' and amongst senators and equites.[231] That story finds credence amongst historians; the third, ironical indeed if true, still divides them. It is that Augustus, shortly before his death, visited Agrippa in his exile and they were reconciled.[232] Whether true or not, that tale, too, points in a consistent direction: Agrippa was politically of high significance. And it may well be that in conjuring up a conspiracy against Augustus (or Tiberius) in the years a.d. 6 to 8 historians have tried to be too clever. The cui bono of the elimination of Iulia's children was Tiberius, and they may have been the victims rather than the authors of a deadly dynastic struggle.
On the return of Tiberius from Illyricum at the beginning of a.d. 9 there was a ceremony of reditus in his honour in the Saepta; and resentment, not on the part of the plebs but of its betters, spilt over: the equites protested against the rules of the lex lulia de maritandis ordinibus, with their penalties upon the childless. Old Augustus read the assembled populace in the Forum a furious lecture about childlessness;[233] and while Tiberius travelled back to the front for what was to prove the conclusive campaign against the rebels in Dalmatia, a Lex Papia Poppaea was put to the assembly by the suffect consuls. It modified the statute of twenty-five years earlier: Dio and Suetonius, however confusing and incompatible their accounts, give an impression that concessions were made, whereas Tacitus speaks expressly to the contrary.[234] For the unmarried, at any rate, one should not underestimate the public ignominy in which the legislation sought to place them: if the ordo equester (being, presumably, the biggest concentration of wealthy caelibes) thought they had influence with the aged ruler, they were sharply rebuffed.
When, late in a.d. 9, with the great rebellion crushed, Tiberius and Germanicus returned to Rome, full triumphs were voted to Augustus and Tiberius, and Germanicus was voted ornamenta triumpbalia, praetorian standing, and permission to stand for the consulship ahead of normal.[235] But no triumphs ensued, for, five days later, the mood of congratulation was shattered by the yet more unimaginable blow of the 'disaster of Varus';[236] three legions lost, and everything beyond the Rhine lost with them. The optimism of Roman conquest had, as in Illyricum, proved unjustified, imperium sine fine unattainable. Augustus' nerve very nearly broke, and we are told he had thoughts of suicide. The defeat laid bare the slender military base on which the empire rested; the Illyricum campaign had already stretched manpower to the limits. Conscription was applied, and stepped up, and there are tales of people executed for refusing the levy. All veterans were recalled, freedmen again enrolled. It was a question whether the Roman people would stand it: fear of a tumult us in Rome led to drafting of an extra military force, and the ruler's personal German bodyguard was held no longer safe.[237]