The Augustan Empire 43 BC

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.