3 The Adoption of Agrippa Postumus and the Friends of Gaius Caesar

Marcus Agrippa Postumus was adopted by Augustus on 26 June ad 4. On this same day Augustus adopted Tiberius Claudius Nero as well. A lex curiata ratified the arrangements and equipped both with the filiation Augusti f. Similarities end here.¹ While Agrippa could yet impress with his new name, Tiberius was also given tribunicia potestas for a period of ten years and imperium for battle in Germany.² Tiberius, moreover, was adopted for the sake of the Republic (rei publicae causa). Tiberius was to be Augustus’ successor.³ There were caveats, however. Tiberius was made to adopt Germanicus,⁴ who in turn married Augustus’ granddaughter Agrippina.⁵ The recall of Tiberius’ ex-wife and Augustus’ daughter from the island of Pandateria may also have been discussed at this time. In his study of Julia, daughter of Augustus, Linderski shows that Suetonius’ statement about her recall is ambiguous:

 Post quinquennium demum ex insula in continentem lenioribusque paulo condicionibus transtulit eam.

‘It was not until five years later that he moved her from the island to the mainland and treated her with less rigueur.’⁶

Though we can include 2 bc in the quinquennium, registering Julia’s transfer to ad 3, the Latin also allows us to exclude 2 bc, which would place Julia’s transfer to Rhegium in ad 4. The softening of Julia’s conditions may well have been part of the negotiations leading up to 26 June.

Dio and Suetonius cite enthusiastic calls for her full restoration by the people in the year of her instalment at Rhegium.⁷ Highly placed individuals probably were in support of, or encouraged even, the popular protest. Possibilities include the younger Julia, L. Aemilius Paullus (cos. ad 1), M. Aemilius Lepidus (cos. ad 6), and L. Scribonius Libo (cos. ad 16). Age probably excludes Libo, while Aemilius Lepidus’ friendship with Tiberius makes advocacy of Julia unlikely. L. Aemilius Paullus, Lepidus’ brother, is our best candidate. That he was chosen to share the consulship with Gaius Caesar evidences the necessary influence. That his wife was Julia’s eldest daughter shows he had the motive. The manner of his eventual demise is the best evidence, however: he was condemned for treason.⁸ I propose that L. Aemilius Paullus, either at the request of his wife or in collaboration with her, helped to incite a popular demonstration in support of his mother-in-law’s full restoration. Dio gives Augustus’ reaction: ‘fire should sooner mix with water than she should be restored’ but then adds ‘yet later the people brought such pressure to bear that she was at least brought from the island to the mainland’.⁹ If public pressure was maintained it would provide L. Aemilius Paullus with a legitimate opportunity to offer Augustus a suggestion, such as ‘perhaps a partial compromise to placate the people while not damaging your position’. It would not be given in private, but in a forum like the consilium principis or the family council. As the younger Julia's husband, it would be difficult for him to pretend indifference, but the suggestion would not be enough to concern the princeps. Indeed, Augustus would have been well aware of Aemilius Paullus’ personal situation. We can also postulate the inspiration behind the popular protest in support of the elder Julia: it was said that Tiberius was to become heir. Scholars have wanted to add another caveat: Agrippa’s adoption.¹⁰

It is clear from the evidence that Tiberius was to succeed Augustus. Agrippa was only 15, Germanicus was 18, and the younger Drusus 17. In contrast, Tiberius was almost 46.¹¹ It is true that Gaius and Lucius were 14 when marked for succession, but at that time Augustus enjoyed relatively good health, or else the appearance of it. Since then almost a decade had passed and Augustus probably felt that too little time remained for appropriate training.¹² Tiberius had been consul twice and had been invested with tribunicia potestas for a period of five years shortly before his withdrawal to Rhodes; he was an experienced general and his mother was the indefatigable Livia. Augustus therefore adopted Tiberius because he was the most likely candidate.¹³ Why then did Augustus adopt Agrippa?

Agrippa had not yet received the toga virilis.¹⁴ His only superior qualification was genetic: Augustus’ blood coursed through his veins.¹⁵ With Gaius and Lucius dead, the younger Julia married to her cousin L. Aemilius Paullus, and Agrippina destined to marry Germanicus, Agrippa appeared to be in limbo. He was not old enough to enter public life, his mother was exiled, and his father was dead. It has therefore been argued that the adoption exhibits Augustus’ sentimentality.¹⁶ This may in part be true, but ignores an obvious objection: why did Tiberius not adopt Agrippa instead? It would have provided a clearer picture. Augustus → Tiberius → Germanicus → Drusus → Agrippa: a line of succession ordered by age and experience. Yet Augustus took Agrippa on himself. A clue lies in the descriptions of Agrippa provided by the ancient sources.

It was once fashionable to believe that Agrippa was insane or a dim-witted brute.¹⁷ Such descriptions misinterpret the language. Velleius uses furor, and describes him as possessing a deformed or perverse character: mira pravitate animi atque ingenii in praecipitia.¹⁸ Dio cites a devotion to servile pursuits (δουλοπρεπής) and a propensity for violent anger (τῃ̑ τε ὀργῃ̑ προπετει̑ ἐχρη̑το), and Tacitus and Suetonius both use the term ferox.¹⁹ Contemporaries were said to have described Agrippa as trux, while Suetonius echoes Dio’s ‘servile pursuits’ with ingenium sordidum.²⁰ Some scholars perceived in trux and furor evidence of an unstable mind; Agrippa was subjected to the psychoanalytic approach.²¹ But the method was based on a mistaken premiss. Ancient descriptions reveal moral not mental inadequacy: Agrippa was deemed deficient in moral character.²² Dismissive analyses of Agrippa Postumus based on his mental ability can be, therefore, dismantled on the grounds of methodology alone.²³ Augustus’ treatment of the future emperor Claudius during the same period is instructive.²⁴ Suetonius believed he was in possession of a letter from Augustus to Livia on the subject of Claudius’ character. Augustus wrote:

Nam si artius, ut ita dicam, holocleros, quid est quod dubitemus, quin per eosdem articulos et gradus producendus sit, per quos frater eius productus sit? Sin autem ἠλαττω̑σθαι sentimus eum et βεβλάφθαι καὶ εἰς τὴν του̑ σώματος καὶ εἰς τὴν τη̑ς ψυχη̑ς ἀρτιότητα, praebenda materia deridendi et illum et nos non est hominibus τὰ τοιαυ̑τα σκώπτειν καὶ μυκτηρίζειν εἰωθόσιν.

For if he is, so to say, complete, what reason have we for doubting that he ought to be advanced through the same grades and steps through which his brother [Germanicus] has been advanced. If however we feel that he is inferior and damaged in the fitness of his body and mind, material for making fun of him and us must not be offered to people accustomed to mocking and sneering at such things.²⁵

This was written in ad 12, when Claudius was 21.²⁶ It is significant that Augustus began the letter with ‘I have now discussed with Tiberius what we should do about your grandson Claudius…we agree that a decision ought to be taken once and for all.’²⁷ Augustus’ position is unambiguous: Claudius would either have a career or he would not. Nothing was left to chance. If it was agreed that Claudius was a problem, he would be hidden from the public’s view and treated like a child or invalid. It is therefore unlikely that Agrippa was identified as mentally deranged or defective, but Claudius may yet hold the key:

atque ex contubernio sordidissimorum hominum super veterem segnitiae notam ebrietatis quoque et aleae infamiam subiit, cum interim, quanquam hoc modo agenti, numquam aut officium hominum aut reverentia publice defuit.

And from his intimacy with the most sordid of men he was exposed to the infamy of drunkenness and gambling, in addition to his old characteristic of slowness. Nevertheless in the meantime, despite his conduct, he never lacked either attention from men or respect from the public.²⁸

Though Agrippa was only 15, it is not inconceivable that he surrounded himself with, or was surrounded by, unsuitable people. His ‘truculence’ was that of any teenager involved with the ‘wrong’ crowd and deemed to be ‘uncontrollable’. He was not interested in activities that were associated with intelligence at Rome (oratory, legal studies, philosophy, poetry, and history), nor was he a model of discipline and restraint. Ferox implies ‘wild’ conduct, while ingenium sordidum encapsulates drinking, gambling, brawling, and low sports. He was considered idle and unfocused, typified by the story that he ‘spent most of his time fishing’.²⁹ We can, therefore, use the treatment of Claudius to postulate reasons for Agrippa’s adoption.

Agrippa was not adopted in order to be put out of the way. Augustus had decided instead that Agrippa was fit to play some part in the settlement.³⁰ He was unready for public advancement, but he would not be obscure. The political situation probably informed Augustus’ decision.³¹ Popular sympathy for the elder Julia would affect her only surviving son; Agrippa represented hope to those who had attached themselves, and thus their political future, to Gaius and Lucius.³² As with their support for the restoration of Julia from exile, people were probably asking ‘What about Agrippa?’ L. Aemilius Paullus, the younger Julia’s husband and Agrippa’s brother-in-law, is again important.³³ His involvement in the recall of Julia from Pandateria was suggested above, but his connection to Gaius Caesar, with whom he was allowed to share the consulship, would be a more significant factor in his decision to cultivate a relationship with Agrippa.³⁴ Gaius died on 24 February ad 4, four months before Agrippa’s adoption.³⁵ It is likely that some who had invested heavily in Gaius began to show an interest in Agrippa. He was only a boy, but so was Gaius when designated consul in 6 bc.³⁶ Agrippa was in fact one year older. Interest in the young Agrippa might therefore have played a part in Augustus’ decision to adopt. Free from patria potestas and due to wear the toga virilis, the prospect of a rich and uninhibited Agrippa entering the Roman political scene sui iuris would surely have alarmed Augustus and Tiberius, especially if surrounded by Gaius’ old ‘mates’. Agrippa’s adoption was not forced on Augustus by vociferous supporters, but was an attempt to control a potentially uncomfortable situation.

Here is my proposed scenario: Augustus, Tiberius, and Livia were discussing Tiberius’ adoption. Tiberius agreed to adopt his nephew Germanicus; Augustus then turned the discussion to Agrippa’s future: ‘Agrippa should already have taken the toga virilis. His future must be planned now’. Agrippa’s behaviour was a concern, as was his choice of friends. They therefore agreed that Agrippa must be adopted before the toga virilis was taken. Tiberius would not accept the responsibility; Augustus said that he would adopt Agrippa himself, to keep a close eye on him and act as a personal instructor. Satisfied, Tiberius and Livia agreed. Finally, in order not to confuse the line of succession, and perhaps to explain further the decision to adopt two people at once, it was decided that to Tiberius’ adoption would be added the phrase rei publicae causa.³⁷ Interest in Agrippa by Gaius Caesar’s old friends made this conversation necessary.

Most who invested in Gaius did so at the expense of friendship with Tiberius. In ad 1 Gaius, during an eastern tour, was faced with a Parthian coup that affected the political situation in Armenia.³⁸ Before reaching Syria, he stopped at Samos to meet with Tiberius.³⁹ Gaius probably asked Tiberius about his experience with Armenian politics, and Tiberius enquired about events in Rome.⁴⁰ Velleius writes: convento prius Ti. Nerone, cui omnem honorem ut superiori habuit ‘he first met with Tiberius Nero, whom he treated with all honour as [his] superior.’ Both observed appropriate decorum.⁴¹ Suetonius provides a commentary:

Namque privignum Gaium Orienti praepositum, cum visendi gratia traiecisset Samum, alieniorem sibi sensit ex criminationibus M. Lolli comitis et rectoris eius.

For when he crossed to Samos to visit his stepson Gaius, who was overseer of the East, he found him somewhat estranged through the accusations of Marcus Lollius, a member of Gaius’ staff and his instructor.⁴²

The meeting ended and Gaius travelled to Syria, where he met with the Parthian king Phrataces on an island in the Euphrates. During the meeting Lollius was somehow undermined. Velleius was a military tribune on Gaius’ staff and provides a firsthand account:

Quo tempore M. Lollii, quem veluti moderatorem iuventae filii sui Augustus esse voluerat, perfida et plena subdoli ac versuti animi consilia, per Parthum indicata Caesari, fama vulgavit. Cuius mors intra paucos dies fortuita an voluntaria fuerit ignoro.

It was at this time that there were revealed to Caesar, through the Parthian King, the treacherous designs, revealing a crafty mind given to stratagems, of Marcus Lollius, whom Augustus had wished to be the adviser of his still young son; and rumour spread. Concerning his death, which occurred within a few days, I do not know whether it was accidental or voluntary.⁴³

‘Caesar’ must here refer to Gaius: Phrataces alleged that he had information that Lollius was up to no good. The elder Pliny provides some details:

 Hoc fuit quare M. Lollius infamatus regum muneribus in toto oriente interdicta amicitia a C. Caesare Augusti filio venenum biberet, ut neptis eius quadringentiens HS operta spectaretur ad lucernas.

It was for this that M. Lollius, having made himself infamous by taking gifts from kings throughout the orient and having his friendship renounced by Gaius Caesar, son of Augustus, drank poison, that his granddaughter should be shown in the lamplight wearing HS 400,000.⁴⁴

The HS 400,000 was the value of jewels Lollius had received in the east, apparently one of the many payments which caused his disgrace.⁴⁵ But why pay Lollius? Presumably certain eastern rulers were hoping to influence his advice to Gaius. If his senior adviser was in the pay of Parthia’s opponents, or even those who were nominally ‘friends’, it would have proved very awkward for Gaius, who was negotiating peace with the Parthian king. Gaius was either ignorant of Lollius’ activities or pretended as much. Payments were either way deemed insidious once exposed. Given the nature of the negotiations, however, Phrataces probably used the incident to question the intentions of Rome. Gaius dealt swiftly with his rector, placing himself above suspicion while protecting others from contamination. But how was Phrataces informed? Evidence of collusion could have been noticeable, but Gaius’ claim to ignorance would have been consequently untenable. It is possible that the information was leaked from within Gaius’ entourage. Suetonius cites a revealing incident:

…familiari quondam convivio mentione eius orta exstiterit qui Gaio polliceretur, confestim se, si iuberet, Rhodum navigaturum caputque exsulis—sic enim appellabatur—relaturum.

When mention was made of him [Tiberius] at a private dinner party, a man who was there assured Gaius that if he would say the word he would at once sail to Rhodes and bring back the head of ‘the exile’, as he was commonly called.⁴⁶

Suetonius had information that the episode was the catalyst for Tiberius’ request to return to Rome, a request supported by Livia. The story probably reached Tiberius through P. Sulpicius Quirinius. In his obituary of Quirinius Tacitus writes:

 …datusque rector C. Caesari Armeniam obtinenti. Tiberium quoque Rhodi agentem coluerat: quod tunc patefecit in senatu, laudatis in se officiis et incusato M. Lollio, quem auctorem Gaio Caesari pravitatis et discordiarum arguebat.

He was appointed adviser to Gaius Caesar in Armenia and also actively cultivated Tiberius who was at Rhodes: He [Tiberius] now disclosed all this in the Senate, praising the services of him [Quirinius] to himself while censuring Marcus Lollius, whom he accused of having been the author of Gaius Caesar’s wrongdoing and disagreeable behaviour.⁴⁷

Patefacio means that Quirinius’ disclosures had been kept secret. Moreover, for Rhodus to make sense, the secret correspondence must belong to a period before Tiberius returned to Rome (which he did soon after Lollius died). Indeed, datusque rector C. Caesari Armeniam obtinenti does not exclude the possibility that Quirinius was already in the camp when made rector.⁴⁸ It is, therefore, likely that Quirinius informed Tiberius, through a messenger, about the hostile atmosphere within the camp. Tiberius blamed Lollius for everything. Suetonius continues:

Quo praecipue non iam metu sed discrimine coactus est tam suis quam matris inpensissimis precibus reditum expostulare impetravitque adiutus aliquantum etiam casu. Destinatum Augusto erat, nihil super ea re nisi ex voluntate maioris fili statuere; is forte tunc M. Lollio offensior facilis exorabilisque in vitricum fuit.

This especially brought home to him that his position was not now fearful but dangerous, and so he pleaded for his return with urgent prayers, in which his mother joined, and he obtained it, although partly owing to chance. It had been decided by Augustus that nothing should be determined in this matter that was not agreeable to his elder son; it happened that Gaius was now at odds with M. Lollius and so was open and placable towards his step-father.⁴⁹

When Augustus’ letter reached Gaius, Lollius was disgraced but still alive. Since we know that only a few days separated Lollius’ disgrace from his death, Augustus’ message must have reached Gaius immediately after Phrataces’ allegations. Quirinius thus informed Tiberius about the threat some months before Gaius and Phrataces met.⁵⁰ If Quirinius and Tiberius continued to correspond secretly in the intervening period, then we may have found our whistle-blower. Quirinius was evidently adept at concealing his correspondence, and must certainly have opposed Lollius (if only in secret). Moreover, the only known beneficiaries of Phrataces’ revelations were Tiberius and Quirinius himself.⁵¹ Quirinius’ knowledge of Augustus’ reply is irrelevant (though he may well have known about a response), for the benefits of destroying Lollius were self-evident.

It has been argued that the disgrace of Lollius and the rise of Quirinius signal the ascendancy of Tiberius, but that is too much.⁵² Quirinius was probably the most experienced individual left, and since his correspondence with Tiberius was kept secret until after his death, the alliance went unnoticed. The nature of Tiberius’ recall shows, moreover, that Gaius’ unease with him persisted, despite the setting aside of animosity:

Permittente ergo Gaio revocatus est verum sub condicione ne quam partem curamve rei p. attingeret.

Therefore with Gaius’ permission he was recalled, but on the condition that he take no part in public life or hold any responsibility.⁵³

The combination of pars with cura seems redundant. But Suetonius had access to the imperial correspondence, and we know that letters between Augustus and Gaius survived to the time of Aulus Gellius.⁵⁴ We may instead have the exact phrase used by Gaius. Gaius was not being redundant, he was eliminating loopholes. Exclusion from every ‘part’ of public life and every ‘responsibility’ means attendance in the senate and all public positions, including those that did not require senatorial insignia. Obscurity in Rome rather than in Rhodes was alone conceded. This is not evidence of Tiberius’ ascendancy. It is evidence of Gaius’ clemency and power. It is also evidence that Gaius’ clemency had limits: he was still suspicious (and perhaps fearful even) of Tiberius, along with other members of his entourage. Quirinius’ promotion did not bring full cordiality between Gaius and Tiberius.

Suetonius believed that within Gaius’ entourage Tiberius was referred to only as the exul. Such opinions must be widely held in order to be both institutionalized and publicly known. Revelations about the depth of hostility within his own circle forced Gaius to show clemency; the potential insinuation that he, like members of his staff, wanted Tiberius dead needed to be promptly dismissed. But deep-set feelings are put aside; they do not vanish. Having arrived in Rome with Gaius’ corpse, Gaius’ paedagogus and some ministri were executed:

Paedagogum ministrosque C. fili, per occasionem valitudinis mortisque eius superbe avareque in provincia grassatos, oneratis gravi pondere cervicibus praecipitavit in flumen.

He [Augustus] ordered that the paedagogus and aides of his son Gaius, since they had taken advantage of their master’s illness and death to commit acts of arrogance and greed in his province, be thrown into the river with heavy weights about their necks.⁵⁵

The reason for execution is suspect. Gaius died in the coastal city of Limyra while returning to Italy with his entourage; they probably cheated some local merchants. Velleius provides a more plausible explanation. It was believed that a wound suffered in battle severely affected Gaius’ physical and mental abilities:

Nec defuit conversatio hominum vitia eius adsentatione alentium (etenim semper magnae fortunae comes adest adulatio), per quae eo ductus erat ut in ultimo ac remotissimo terrarum orbis angulo consenescere quam Romam regredi mallet.

Nor was there lacking the companionship of persons who encouraged his defects by flattery (for flattery always goes hand in hand with high position) as a result of which he wished to live in life long retirement in a remote and distant corner of the world rather than return to Rome.⁵⁶

The ‘remote and distant corner of the world’ was apparently Syria.⁵⁷ The exact location is not known, but Antioch, one of the great cities of the Mediterranean world and the seat of provincial government, is the obvious choice.⁵⁸ It would not have escaped Gaius’ notice that his father was highly thought of in the area, ‘Agrippa’ being one of the most common Italian names in Syria.⁵⁹ Evidently the government held Gaius’ entourage responsible for his psychological condition, alleging that Gaius was led astray. This can also be inferred from the identity of Syria’s next legatus Augusti pro praetore following Gaius’ death: P. Sulpicius Quirinius.⁶⁰ Having dismantled Gaius’ entourage in ad 4, Augustus and Tiberius probably sought to dampen any lingering influence the group held in the east by introducing one of Tiberius’ most loyal supporters.⁶¹ The execution of Gaius’ paedagogus and aides thus signalled a new political order. The sudden ascendancy of Tiberius, for so long an object of ridicule and derision for the newly established smart-set, must have seemed to wipe away the very foundations of an aspiring political order. Young men on the up, confident that the future was theirs, were of a sudden left uncertain and feeling vulnerable. Many hitherto influential men in Rome would no doubt sympathize with king Archelaus of Cappadocia’s experience:

Rex Archelaus quinquagesimum annum Cappadocia potiebatur, invisus Tiberio quod eum Rhodi agentem nullo officio coluisset. Nec id Archelaus per superbiam omiserat, sed ab intimis Augusti monitus, quia florente Gaio Caesare missoque ad res Orientis intuta Tiberii amicitia credebatur.

For fifty years King Archelaus had been in possession of Cappadocia; to Tiberius a hated man, because while he was at Rhodes Archelaus showed him none of the respect he deserved. The neglect was due not to arrogance, but to advice from the intimates of Augustus; for, as Gaius Caesar was then flourishing and had been sent to settle affairs in the East, the friendship of Tiberius was believed to be unsafe.⁶²

When, in ad 4, Gaius’ disenfranchised friends transferred their interest to the young but soon-to-be-of-age Agrippa, Augustus probably decided that an adoption was necessary. It is, therefore, significant that on receiving the toga virilis in ad 5, Agrippa ‘obtained none of the same privileges as his brothers’ and a year later suffered abdicatio and was sent to the town of Surrentum.