A Deafening Silence: Agrippa Postumus

and The Will of AugustusI Saw and I Wondered: Roman Tourists at the Colossus of Memnon

TIMOTHY JONES was a rival to Tiberius.5 There was a degree of social and legal equality between Tiberius and Postumus as sons of Augustus: however acitus opens his account of Tiberius’ Tiberius was clearly politically superior, since he had what Swan calls ‘seniority, experience reign with the ominous report that the 6 first deed of the new regime was the and indisputable military competence.’ In T addition, Postumus was fifteen years old. The slaughter of Agrippa Postumus (Primum facinus novi principatus fuit Postumi Agrippae caedes).1 46-year-old Tiberius was clearly the senior deputy to Augustus, contrary to ancient claims Modern scholarship provides a substantial 7 body of analysis concerning this episode, but about rivalry between the two. no unitary explanation has been forthcoming as to why Postumus died.2 The purpose of this article is to consider Agrippa Postumus’ 2. Postumus’ Fall from Grace position at the time of Augustus’ death in light of his last will and testament. We will see that Relations between Augustus and Postumus the young man goes entirely unmentioned in were to deteriorate, and we now turn to Augustus’ will. Legal texts may shed some Suetonius and Dio for the details. In assessing light on the fate of Postumus, but, as we will Augustus’ relationship with his family, Suetonius see, they also further complicate the issue. comments on the breakdown of relations Our purpose is to establish the historical facts between Augustus and Agrippa Postumus and around Postumus and his place in the state and Augustus’ response. Suetonius writes then apply selected legal texts to those facts. Tertium nepotem Agrippam simulque privignum Tiberium adoptavit in foro 1. The Adoptions of 4CE lege curiata; ex quibus Agrippam brevi ob ingenium sordidum ac ferox abdicavit seposuitque Surrentum… Agrippam nihilo Prior to looking specifically at Augustus’ tractabiliorem, immo in dies amentiorem, will and the legal texts, it is necessary to in insulam transportavit saepsitque insuper examine the aftermath of the adoptions of custodia militum. Cavit etiam s. c. ut eodem 4CE. Augustus adopted Agrippa Postumus at loci in perpetuum contineretur. 8 the same time as Tiberius. Postumus was the son of Julia and Marcus Agrippa and thus the grandson of Augustus.3 His motivation in the He [Augustus] then adopted his third simultaneous adoption seems to have been to grandson Agrippa at the same time provide what Birch called ‘internal balance’ as he adopted his step-son Tiberius between his own descendants and those of in the forum by a law passed through Livia.4 These adoptions made both Tiberius the curiate assembly; however, he and Agrippa Postumus sons of Augustus. quickly disowned Agrippa due to his Dio goes so far as to suggest that Postumus ferocious and sordid temperament and relegated him to Serentum …

1 Tac. Ann. 1.6. The text is from The Latin Library. 5 Dio 57.4.1. 2 Pappano (1941); Allen (1947); Detweiler (1970); Levick (1972); Jameson (1975); Birch (1981); Simpson (1996). 6 Swan (2004). 3 The adoptions of 4CE are dealt with in detail by the 7 It is worth noting in passing the view of Simpson, that, ancients – see Vell. Pat. 2.103.1-104.2, 112.7, Suet. Aug. 65.1, through the adoption of Postumus, Augustus ‘extinguished’ Suet. Tib. 15.2-16.1, 21.2-3, Tac. Ann. 1.3.3-5. the line of the great Agrippa. See Simpson (1996). 4 Birch (1981). 8 Suet. Aug. 65.1,4.

76 77 Iris | Journal of the Classical Association of Victoria | New Series | Volume 29 | 2016 A Deafening Silence: Agrippa Postumus and The Will of Augustus

affection.10 Finally, the impermanent nature of as Agrippa became in no way more abdicatio renders the allegation of a restoration manageable, but rather became more in the period leading up to Augustus’ death unstable by the day, he [Augustus] plausible, and we turn to those events now. sent him to an island and placed him under a guard of soldiers. He [Augustus] also secured, by Senatorial 3. Augustus’ Death and the Alleged Decree, that he [Postumus] should be Restoration of Postumus confined in that place forever. The main source for these events is Tacitus, so Suetonius identifies two distinct phases to we start with his account. Tacitus writes Agrippa’s fall from grace. The first phase was Augustus disowning Postumus due to his Haec atque talia agitantibus gravescere temperament and behaviour and sending him valetudo Augusti, et quidam scelus uxoris to his father’s villa at Serentum. The second suspectabant. quippe rumor incesserat, paucos phase took place when Postumus’ behaviour ante menses Augustum, electis consciis et did not improve and Augustus sent him comite uno Fabio Maximo, Planasiam vectum under military guard to the island of Planasia. ad visendum Agrippam; multas illic utrimque Agrippa’s behaviour not improving is likely to lacrimas et signa caritatis spemque ex eo fore refer, in part, to the fact that he had berated ut iuvenis penatibus avi redderetur: quod Augustus for not granting him what he thought Maximum uxori Marciae aperuisse, illam were his entitlements from his natural father Liviae. gnarum id Caesari; neque multo post Marcus Agrippa.9 extincto Maximo, dubium an quaesita morte, auditos in funere eius Marciae gemitus semet 11 The situation, then, was that by 7CE, incusantis, quod causa exitii marito fuisset. Postumus was seemingly persona non grata in Rome. However, Jameson notes an interesting As these topics were being discussed, complexity in Agrippa’s status in these years. the health of Augustus became If he had been subject to Augustus’ formal worse, and some began to suspect the renunciation (abdicatio), this was likely to criminality of his wife. For a rumour have been intended as a corrective measure had circulated that Augustus, a few on his behaviour, which, she writes, may months before, confiding in a select have included the possibility of a restoration. few and accompanied by one Fabius Abdicatio, then, need not necessarily be seen Maximus, sailed to the island of as permanent. This lack of clarity around Planasia to visit his grandson Agrippa Postumus’ position, even after his banishment Postumus. In that place many tears to Planasia, is reflected in Jameson’s suggestion and signs of affection were exchanged that, if Augustus had wanted to invalidate on both sides, such that there was Postumus’ claim on his estate, he had other hope that the youth might be restored options open to him. The implication of this to the house of his grandfather. This statement is that banishment was not sufficient. Maximus revealed to his wife, Marcia, These remedies were not without their and she to Livia. That was known to problems. For instance, if Augustus had simply Caesar. Maximus died soon after, and disinherited him in his will, Postumus could doubt exists about the nature of his have claimed that the will had not been made death. Marcia was heard at his funeral with proper consideration of familial ties of sobbing and blaming herself for the destruction of her husband.

10 Jameson (1975).

9 Dio 55.32.2. 11 Tac. Ann. 1.5.

78 A Deafening Silence: Agrippa Postumus and The Will of Augustus

The idea that Augustus would restore Postumus possibly fear, on the part of Tiberius or Livia. to the Imperial House parallels the death scene We will see that suspicion around Tiberius of Claudius.12 As the incident is presented, the and his mother for the death of Postumus is clear heir, in that case Nero, was allegedly common among many of the sources. to be supplanted by a natural descendant of the incumbent Princeps but was secured in We now turn to Dio’s account of Augustus’ the role by the actions of a woman. The form death, with the focus once again on Agrippa of the story around the death of Augustus is Postumus’ role in the narrative. Dio writes similar, with Tiberius as the empowered heir and Postumus as the natural descendant. This Augustus, being unwell, died, and his leitmotif should cause us to be suspicious: wife, Livia, incurred some suspicion Tacitus has taken a standard historiographical concerning his death because he had device and applied it to different situations.13 secretly sailed to Agrippa Postumus The likelihood of these schema applying to on the island where he was exiled and both situations exactly is extremely low. That seemed to be about to be reconciled said, even if we doubt the alleged reason for with him. For she was fearing, as some the visit, that Augustus may have considered say, that he [Augustus] might restore restoring, the idea that he should want to see him [Postumus] to the monarchy. She his grandson one final time before his death is approached the fig trees from which not outside the realm of possibility. We note Augustus had been accustomed to here that, in Tacitus’ narrative, Augustus’ gather figs by his own hand, smeared visit to Postumus is reported as a rumour, a some with poison, ate the others favoured device of Tacitus’. We will see that and offered the poisoned ones to other sources, principally Dio, are not as subtle. Augustus.15

That said, interpreting Tacitus’ representation of this rumoured assignation on Planasia It was because of the visit and alleged plans may simply be a matter of accommodating to restore Postumus to the monarchy (the appearances and perceptions. In politics, the anachronistic term is appropriate given Dio’s appearances, what we may call the optics of chronological placement) that Augustus was the situation, are often more important than reportedly murdered. Dio’s account lacks the reality. Even if Augustus’ sole intention was the subtlety of Tacitus. Tacitus reports a to see his grandson once more before he died, rumour about Augustus visiting Postumus and this reality may have been lost in suspicion possibly restoring him to favour (whatever and paranoia over the idea that Augustus was that would mean). In Dio, not only has this visiting his grandson. Again focusing on the transformed into fact, but the suggestion that it optics of the situation, by confiding in so few was the motive for the death of Augustus is far and taking only one companion with him, and more explicit here than it is in Tacitus. Once in light of what is reported to have happened Postumus was put to death, Tiberius not only denied all knowledge of the deed, but ordered to Maximus, Augustus had, intentionally 16 or otherwise, created suspicion around the an enquiry before the Senate. However, Dio potential future role of his grandson.14 This also reports that the Emperor did not seek is likely to have caused confusion, and quite out and punish the alleged perpetrators, but permitted people to create their own version of events, with various suspects being considered. 17 12 Compare Tac. Ann. 12.68 to Ann. 1.5. For a modern The government response to Postumus’ death treatment see Burnand (2011). 15 Dio 56.30.1-2. 13 In addition to these two examples from Tacitus, consider Livy AUC 1.41, Dio 55.13.1a. 16 Tac. Ann. 1.5. 14 It is also plausible that Tacitu has created this suspicion. 17 Dio 57.3.5-6.

78 79 Iris | Journal of the Classical Association of Victoria | New Series | Volume 29 | 2016 A Deafening Silence: Agrippa Postumus and The Will of Augustus

may be described as disorganised and confused, In sum, then, we see that their particular an apt reflection of the uncertainty surrounding prejudices of the surviving sources, either pro Tiberius’ accession. We must remember that or anti-Tiberius, are clearly on display. The such a transfer of power had never happened biases of the sources are also reflected in the before in Roman history, and as a result, a timing of Postumus’ death. Velleius reports degree of uncertainty was to be expected. it before Augustus’ death so as remove any suspicion from the Imperial House as a whole, Finally, we turn to the contemporary, and but particularly Tiberius. Dio and Tacitus, laudatory, Velleius, who describes the death by contrast, include the death of Postumus of Postumus before the death of Augustus. immediately after Augustus’ death, in order to We should not be surprised to learn that his sully Tiberius’ reputation. The details around brief comment on Postumus’ death lacks many Postumus’ violent end are not clear, and even details, specifically the visit by Augustus and the motives described by the sources are the allegation that Postumus was to be restored vague. This complex issue exacerbated by to favour. Velleius writes Augustus’ will, if we also consider legal issues around adoption and inheritance. Before Hoc fere tempore Agrippa, qui eodem die quo turning to the related legal texts, we shall Tiberius adoptatus ab avo suo naturali erat consider Augustus’ will. et iam ante biennium, qualis esset, apparere coeperat, mira pravitate animi atque ingenii 4. Augustus’ Will in praecipitia conversus patris atque eiusdem avi sui animum alienavit sibi, moxque crescentibus in dies vitiis dignum furore suo Given Augustus’ prominence, his will would habuit exitum.18 have major political consequences. Suetonius, in his Life of Augustus, includes an epilogue on At this time Agrippa Postumus, who the will. He writes had been adopted by his natural grandfather at the same time as Testamentum L. Planco C. Silio cons. III. Non. Tiberius and, two years prior, had Apriles, ante annum et quattuor menses quam begun to show his true nature, decederet, factum ab eo ac duobus codicibus alienated himself from both his partim ipsius partim libertorum Polybi et father (adoptive) and grandfather. Hilarionis manu scriptum depositumque He fell into dangerous behaviour due apud se virgines Vestales cum tribus signatis to a strange mental depravity and, as aeque voluminibus protulerunt. Quae omnia his vices expanded daily, met the end in senatu aperta atque recitata sunt. Heredes warranted by his own madness. instituit primos: Tiberium ex parte dimidia et sextante, Liviam ex parte tertia, quos et ferre nomen suum iussit; secundos: Drusum The alleged visit of Augustus is not mentioned, Tiberi filium ex triente, ex partibus reliquis nor is the possible restoration of Postumus. Germanicum liberosque eius tres sexus virilis; Rather, his mental breakdown is emphasised, tertio gradu propinquos, amicosque compluris… seemingly to justify his end, which is glossed Iulias filiam neptemque, si quid iis accidisset, over with no suspect being named. According vetuit sepulcro suo inferri. 19 to Velleius, Postumus simply died. Velleius’ lack of detail on this unpleasantness is not surprising, as this incident would have reflected Augustus made a will three days poorly on the regime of which he was so fond. before the nones of April in the Consulship of Lucius Plancus and

18 Vell. Pat 2.112.7. 19 Suet. Aug. 101.1-2.

80 A Deafening Silence: Agrippa Postumus and The Will of Augustus

Gaius Silius [13CE], one year and Since cruel fate has ripped my four months before he died. The will sons Gaius and Lucius from me, let consisted of two codices, partially Tiberius Caesar be the heir to two- written by his own hand and partially thirds of my estate. by the hand of the freedmen Polybius and Hilario. These codices, deposited with the Vestal Virgins, were now Jameson suggests that the testator needed to produced by them along with three disinherit by name any unwanted claimant similarly sealed volumes, all of before he named the heirs to his estate, which were now opened and read in and especially before the inheritance was 21 the Senate. He [Augustus] instituted mentioned. Champlin claims that there as his primary heirs Tiberius, who must have been a clause of disinheritance would receive two-thirds of his (exheridatio), but not only do the opening lines estate, and Livia, who would receive of the will run counter to this, since Postumus one-third. These two he [Augustus] is not mentioned, we will see below that it may ordered to assume his own name. The not even have been necessary for Augustus to secondary heirs were Drusus, son of have mentioned Postumus at all, since he was 22 Tiberius, for one-third, with the rest a maternal grandchild. to go to Germanicus and his three male descendants. In the third place, It is extraordinary that Augustus mentioned he mentioned some of his friends and his daughter and granddaughter, both of relatives…he also ordered that his whom had been exiled, even if only to deny daughter and granddaughter, both them burial in the family mausoleum. Despite his apparent hostility to his daughter Julia, named Julia, were not to be buried in 23 his mausoleum. he did deem her worthy to receive a legacy. By contrast, it is as if Agrippa Postumus had never existed at all. This is most puzzling, Suetonius places Augustus’ final edition of his since both Julia the Elder and her daughter will in April of 13CE, just over a year before he had committed a crime (adultery), while died. We note in particular the total absence Postumus was banished because of various of Agrippa Postumus from the document. character defects, including his sordid nature, Suetonius provides many details about the his arrogance as well as general madness ( as various arrangements that Augustus made we have seen, animus sordidus, ferox, furor). He concerning different members of his family, to had openly expressed his contempt for Livia the extent that he even named third-tier heirs. and even, as we have noted, berated Augustus It is telling that both Augustus’ daughter and when he refused to grant the young man his granddaughter were mentioned in the will, yet (natural) father’s property.24 Although the his grandson, Agrippa Postumus, was not. actions described by Dio do not appear to be grounds for banishment, Augustus had a Suetonius, in his Life of Tiberius, quotes the reputation for treating indiscretions within his opening lines of Augustus’ will 21 Jameson (1975). Quoniam atrox fortuna Gaium et Lucium 22 Champlin (1989). filios mihi eripuit, Tiberius Caesar mihi ex 23 Dio 56.32.4. This could refer to subsistence in her exile. 20 parte dimidia et sextante heres esto. Tacitus, in his obituary of Julia, says that her death was caused by poverty at Tiberius’ insistence (Tac. Ann. 1.53.2). I would suggest that this means that Tiberius had withdrawn this subsistence allowance.

20 Suet. Tib. 23. 24 Dio 55.32.1.

80 81 Iris | Journal of the Classical Association of Victoria | New Series | Volume 29 | 2016 A Deafening Silence: Agrippa Postumus and The Will of Augustus

family with an implacable harshness.25 The At first, Agrippa’s claim on his natural father’s expectations Augustus placed on his family property seems legitimate. It would be logical were steep, and transgression was not tolerated. to expect that Augustus was not able to exclude Agrippa from the gens Iulii and prevent him Dio includes an additional detail that we from inheriting his father’s property. However, ought to note. He states that if a man had a legal provision concerning emancipation and made Augustus his heir while his children adoption casts doubt on this interpretation. were too young to inherit, the property was Justinian’s Institutes notes that once an adopted returned to the children once they were of party had been emancipated, it was as though age. This practice was continued, Dio notes, they had been emancipated by their natural in Augustus’ will.26 The significance of this for father. That is, an emancipated adoptee had Agrippa Postumus comes when we consider no claim on either his natural or adoptive his claim to his (natural) father’s estate. father’s property.30 This law, if it applied in this situation, should have nullified any claim that Following the death of Marcus Agrippa, his Postumus may have had on either Augustus’ property, which was Postumus’ inheritance, or Marcus Agrippa’s property. If his claims was subject to Augustus’ control as he was were nullified, he would therefore not have Postumus’ eldest living male relative. When represented a threat and so we must ask why Postumus came of age in 5CE, had he been sui it was necessary for violent action to be taken iuris, he would have become the heir to Marcus against him. Agrippa’s property.27 This may provide a partial motive for Augustus’ adoption of Postumus The provision we have just noted, whereby the in 4CE. As a consequence of the adoption, inheritance claims of an emancipated adoptee Augustus would have gained (or in this case on either his natural or adopted father’s property maintained) control over Marcus Agrippa’s were nullified, is supplemented by another law property. The situation is further complicated in the Institutes, Book III. The text states following Postumus’ assumed disinheritance in 7CE. He reverted to being a Vipsanius, but Minus ergo iuris habent adoptivi filii quam remained Augustus’ grandson.28 However, naturales. namque naturales emancipati if this were true, the assumption would be beneficio praetoris gradum liberorum that he would have been entitled to Marcus retinent, licet iure civili perdunt: adoptivi Agrippa’s property as his eldest living male vero emancipati et iure civili perdunt gradum descendant. Indeed, we have already noted liberorum et a praetore non adiuvantur. Dio’s comment that Postumus attempted to et recte: naturalia enim iura civilis ratio press this right, and force Augustus to grant peremere non potest, nec quia desinunt sui him his inheritance. Dio stated that Augustus’ heredes esse, desinere possunt filii filiaeve practice of returning property to children now of aut nepotes neptesve esse: adoptivi vero age was also part of the provisions in his will.29 emancipati extraneorum loco incipiunt esse, quia ius nomenque filii filiaeve, quod per adoptionem consecuti sunt, alia civili ratione, id est emancipatione, perdunt.31 25 Examples include Suet. Aug. 65.2-4. 26 Dio 56.32.3. Therefore, adoptive sons are little 27 Inst. 3.1.2. better off under law than natural sons. For those natural descendants 28 We will see below that, even if this were true, Agrippa’s who are emancipated with the position as Augustus’ grandson could not be taken away from assistance of the Praetor regain him, but any resultant claim could be nullified by the fact that, as a maternal grandson, he did not have to be named in Augustus’ will (Inst 2.13.7). 30 Inst. 2.13.4. 29 Dio 55.32.2. 31 Inst. 3.1.11.

82 A Deafening Silence: Agrippa Postumus and The Will of Augustus

their pre-adoption rank though it Mater vel avus maternus necesse non habent is permitted that they lose it under liberos suos aut heredes instituere aut the civil law; truthfully, adopted exheredare, sed possunt eos omittere.32 emancipates who lose their status under the civil law are not assisted A mother, or a maternal grandfather, by the Praetor. And this is correct: does not have to institute their own for natural descendants cannot be children as heirs or disinherit them, impacted by changes in civil law, but but may simply omit them.

Agrippa Postumus was a maternal grandson of they themselves cannot act as heirs Augustus, and so, by this passage, could quite [if they are emancipated], but are legitimately be omitted without controversy still able to act as sons and daughters, from the will. The issues contained in applying grandsons and granddaughters. By the laws we have considered to this particular contrast, adopted children are viewed situation is yet another complicating factor in as strangers after their emancipation, the investigation of Postumus’ absence from since they lost, by a civil change, that Augustus’ will. However, even if we take which they gained (the name of son this passage at face value as providing the or daughter), through another civil reason that Postumus was not mentioned in change, emancipation. Augustus’ will, we are still faced with the fact that his granddaughter, Julia, also a maternal This passage draws a distinction between grandchild, was mentioned. The context of natural and adopted descendants who had her being mentioned in the will was to deny been emancipated. Agrippa Postumus’ her burial in Augustus’ mausoleum, in all emancipation was as an adopted, rather than likelihood on the grounds of her adultery. a natural, descendant. The point seems to be We may ask why Postumus, who had also that emancipation could sever legally created been exiled, was not mentioned, if only in a ties, such as adoption, but not natural ones, perfunctory fashion. Finally, if it were not that is, ties of descent. Even if Agrippa were necessary to institute Postumus as an heir, emancipated and declared persona non grata as that is, if he could legitimately be omitted, we the adopted son of Augustus, and even if he need to consider, as we did above, the optics of were, as the law says, considered a stranger, the situation rather than the strict legalities to did his emancipation take away his status as explain the motive for the violence against him. the grandson of Augustus? We have noted that Agrippa’s emancipation may have prevented Through our examination of these legal texts, him from inheriting Marcus Agrippa’s we have seen that there seems to be legitimate property. The question is whether the current grounds for Agrippa Postumus being omitted text suggests that, after his emancipation, from Augustus’ will. In light of this, it may Postumus retained the name of grandson, but be useful to speculate about his fate. It may could not claim any of the inherent privileges, be, as Allen suggests, that Postumus died a specifically the right to inherit. natural death and that the reports of violence are an anti-Tiberian fabrication designed The issue of whether Postumus was able to to ‘poison the well’ for his reign by having 33 inherit anything from Augustus appears to it begin, as Nero’s reign did, with a crime. be explained by yet another provision from We should note Postumus’ age and apparent Justinian’s Institutes. The text reads 32 Inst. 2.13.7. 33 Allen (1947).

82 83 Iris | Journal of the Classical Association of Victoria | New Series | Volume 29 | 2016 A Deafening Silence: Agrippa Postumus and The Will of Augustus

good physical health when considering the Augustus’ intent, at least at the time of the possibility of a natural death. Further to adoption. Postumus’ behaviour apparently was Allen’s point, rejection of sources based on sufficient for Augustus to consider him unfit. their hostility to a figure is questionable at best. As a result, he rescinded the adoption and Naturally our reading should be critical, but sent him away. The immediate consequence of wholesale rejection of sources based on hostility this was that Postumus was no longer a Julian, is flawed practice. and, presumably, reverted to being a member of the gens Vipsanii. When sending Postumus Agrippa’s pre-adoption status as a natural away did not prove a corrective force on his descendant of Augustus could not be taken behaviour, Augustus ordered him taken to away from him while he was alive; this much an island under military guard. This is called the law makes clear. We saw above that a ‘banishment’ by the ancients, but a crime does civil change, such as emancipation, could not appear to have been committed. Despite only sever created ties, whilst natural ties this, the exile was ratified by Senatorial Decree were unaffected. However, even if natural and was to be permanent. descendants retained their titles, in this case grandson, they were still not able to inherit. What is not clear is if, or when, Postumus was In addition, we have just seen that maternal disinherited. We have noted that emancipation grandchildren did not necessarily have to be was often used as a corrective force rather than mentioned in a will. Applied to this situation, a permanent punishment, with the possibility these data suggest that even if Postumus for a restoration if the wayward child mended reverted to being Augustus’ grandson, the fact their ways. This lends a certain credibility that his descent was through the maternal line to the allegation that Augustus visited and meant that Augustus could legitimately omit possibly considered reinstating Postumus. him from his will. Postumus’ absence from However, even if this were not Augustus’ Augustus’ will, on this basis, need not be seen intention, the optics of the situation would as extraordinary. have generated fear in Tiberius and Livia that Postumus might be restored and potentially be a The presence of these laws in a later Code may threat to Tiberius’ position. We noted above one suggest caution at their application to earlier attempt to take Postumus to the legions with the times; however, Thomas suggests that this view to challenge Augustus while he was alive. entire subject of the Civil Law was ‘virtually unchanged’ from the time of the Twelve Tables The entire matter is even more complicated to Justinian.34 He does mention some minor when we consider the laws regarding modifications, but the essential elements of the emancipation and inheritance against the laws under examination had existed since the facts. Indeed, the very fact that Postumus’ formulation of the Twelve Tables and appear position is not clearly defined is the basis of our to have applied in Augustus’ day. difficulty. The laws we have considered deal with subjects by category, and the vague and Agrippa Postumus’ position in 14CE presents a seemingly fluid nature of Postumus’ position complex historical problem, which is made no makes categorising him, and hence deciding less accessible by the oblique, conflicting and which provisions apply to him and how, all fragmentary sources. It is only exacerbated the more difficult. We have suggested, on the by legal provisions related to emancipation basis of Institutes 2.13.7, that since Agrippa of adopted children, wills and inheritance. Postumus was Augustus’ maternal grandson, Specifically, we have seen that Postumus was he was not required to mention him in his will. adopted using a style designed to provide an This may explain Postumus’ absence from that estate with an heir. We may infer that this was document. What it does not explain is why it was seen as necessary to kill him.

34 Thomas (1975).

84 A Deafening Silence: Agrippa Postumus and The Will of Augustus

The ancient accounts, excluding Velleius, Bibliography place blame for Postumus’ murder on the Imperial House, focusing on Tiberius and Livia. A possible motive for the violence is Allen, W., Jr. (1947). ‘The Death of Agrippa the uncertainty created by the fact that the Postumus.’ Transactions and Proceedings precise contents of Augustus’ will, specifically of the American Philological Association concerning the fate of Postumus, were not 78: 131-139. known. The respective positions of Tiberius and Livia would have been assumed, but Birch, R. A. (1981). ‘The Settlement of 26 June Postumus’ position was unknown. We note AD 4 and Its Aftermath.’ The Classical here that the terms of a will could not be Quarterly 31(2): 443-456. disclosed prior to its actual reading. There was, of course, precedent for unknown facets Burnand, C. (2011). Tacitus and the Principate : of a will to radically change the Roman world: from Augustus to Domitian. Cambridge the career of Augustus. ; New York, Cambridge University Press. Agrippa Postumus’ fate represented the culmination of all the uncertainty and Champlin, E. (1989). ‘The Testament of upheaval that was associated with the death Augustus.’ Rheinisches Museum für of Augustus. Upon his death, this uncertainty Philologie Neue Folge 132 (Bd., H.2): came to the fore. During his extended reign, 154-165. Augustus’ intentions for the future of the Detweiler, R. (1970). ‘Historical Perspectives regime had been thwarted on many occasions. on the Death of Agrippa Postumus.’ His plans, while often ad hoc and responsive The Classical Journal 65(7): 289-295. to prevailing circumstance, had frequently involved insurances against fate, and he appears Jameson, S. (1975). ‘Augustus and Agrippa to have left little to chance. The very final version Postumus.’ Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte of his plans, his will, would have been similarly Geschichte 24(2): 287-314. structured. Augustus, to all intents and purposes, had followed the law and not mentioned Levick, B. (1972). ‘Abdication and Agrippa Postumus in the will. Could he have thought Postumus.’ Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte that this deafening silence would protect his Geschichte 21(4): 674-697. grandson? If this was his intent, he was wrong. Pappano, A. E. (1941). ‘Agrippa Postumus.’ Classical Philology 36(1): 30-45. Timothy Jones Macquarie University Simpson, C. J. (1996). ‘Legal Restriction and [email protected] Excusable Elitism. Brief Comments on the Adoptions of 17 B.C. and A.D. 4.’ Mnemosyne 49(3): 328-334.

Swan, P. M. (2004). The Augustan succession : an historical commentary on Cassius Dio’s Roman history, Books 55-56 (9 B.C.- A.D. 14). Oxford ; New York, Oxford University Press.

Thomas, J. A. C. (1975). The Institutes of Justinian : text, translation, and commentary. Cape Town, Juta.

84 85