L. Aelins Seianus and his Political Significance Lucius Aelius Seianus was born at Volsinii in Etruria, the son of L. Seius Strabo (*), prefect of Egypt in 15 and praetorian pre- fect before this date. Sejanus was probably a coeval, or very nearly, of the young Caesar, Gaius, who was born in 20 B.C. According to Tacitus (#), Sejanus attached himself to Gaius prima iuventa presumably prior to the latter’s Istrian command (3) and his east- ern mission (1 B.C.). There is no unambiguous evidence that Sejanus accompanied Gaius, but itis likely. After a formal education commensurate with his family status he would spend the time between his assumption of the toga virilis and the age of 17 in some form of tirocinium (military training, parades), and thereafter would probably see service abroad, in all likelihood on the staff of the young Caesar, Thus the indications are that Sejanus was born in 20 or 19 B.C. Sejanus’ father, L, Seius Strabo, held in succession the two highest equestrian offices and was princeps equestris ordinis (*). More- over his mother was extremely well-connected (*), and her brother, Q. Junius Blaesus (8), had reached the consulship in 10. Presumably, (1) Tao. Ann, IV, 1, 25 Vip 85 Dro, 57, 19, 5; Juvaman, % 45 RE, 1, nv. Aeliay vo, 188; PLLRS, 1, A, 255. All dates are A.D, unless otherwite designated. (@) Ann., 1V, 1, 2. For the date of Gaius’ birth vid. Dio, 54, 8, 5, {9} Dio, 55, 1, 17, Cf. R. Srme, Roman Revolution, Oxford, 1952, p. 428, (henceforth cited a RR). Syme takes Tacitus’ statement Calum Cassar ---~ setts to mean that Sejanus ‘accompanied’ Gaius. Tt could equally well mean that he merely ‘courted’ Gaius, Velicius, who served as Tribune under Gaius in the Bast, is silent with regard to Sejanus’ participation, (Vets, IT, 101). Of T. W. Arnica, Ram: ofthe Cactrs, New York, 1965, p. 31 ff (4) Tae, Ann I, 24,25 Vie 8; Dio, 97, 19,5 ; Vint I 127, 3: RE, Lev. Sein, no. 18. (6) Vent, le. it (6) Am, III, 35; 72, 4 CE, Vetuarus, le, it, who mentions only one consular uncle and ia hardly likely 10 be incorrect in his efforts fo enhance Sejanus, expecially as he wat 48 contemperary of the latter,62 HL W. BIRD then, Sejanus’ mother was a Junia (!), and her nephew, the homo- nymous son of Q. Junius Blaesus, cos. suff. in 26, was one of Sejanus’ consular consobrini. Some modern scholars (*) have connected Se- janus with the revolutionary Varro Murena (8) and the Cornelii Lentuli via his supposed mother, Cosconia Gallitta, and have Se- janus adopted by Q. Aelius Tubero, but it has been recently shown that the old hypothesis of Sejanus’ adoption by Aelius Gallus, pre- fect of Egypt 26-24 B.C. (*), is more likely to be correct. The con- sular brothers of Sejanus could have been (through adoption) L. Seius Tubero (cos. suff. 18), Q. Aelius Tubero (cos. ord. 11 B.C.) and Sextus Aclius Catus (cos. ord. 4), the latter two being L. Tubero’s (fratres patrueles, Scjanus may also have possessed a soror patruelis, (Aclia), whose husband (*), L. Cassius Longinus, was cos. suff. in 1] and had twosons, L. Cassius Longinus and C. Cassius Longinus. These were cos. ord. and ces. suff. respectively in 30 and could have been described, in general terms, as consobrini of Sejanus (*). It is pethaps indicative of their tenuous family connections with Sejanus and pro-Tiberian loyalties that the former married into the family of Germanicus in 33 ('). Sejanus’ family connections, however, and his father’s high po- sition would ensure a successful career for the young Sejanus, especial- ly as he was also connected through the Junii Blaesi with the Antoni, and Antonia possessed no little influence (*). One other interesting connection remains. Sejanus had been in his youth a favourite of the debauched and wealthy Marcus Gavius Apicius, and it was perhaps through this relationship that he married Apicata, who may well have had some connection with Apicius (*), (1) OL V. G, Sunoven, The Family Connections of L. Aelius Seienus in Phoenix, 19, 1965, p. 137. But for variants of. R. Szatey, The Political Attachments of La Aelius Seianus in Phorix, 15, 1961, p. 108; F. Apas, The Consular Brothers of Sejenus in A.J.P., 76, 1955, p. 716; R Svum, Tacitus, Oxford, 1958, p. 384, (henceforth cited ax Svuc, T) (2) Bg. Seaizy etc. (cited above). (8) For the case of Murena see now E, J. Watwnss, The Prosecution of Roman Magistrates in Phoenix, 22, 1968, p. 49 ff. (A) A. Smume, Die Prafehien von Agypter, Berne, 1950, p. 16 fi; Sxaes, RR, p. 384; RE, av. Aetias, no. 183; PLRA T, A, 255. (8) Pourox, Dig, 1, 2, 2, 51- (6) Sunaven, op. cit, p. 187 (7) Tao, Ama, VI, 15, 1. (8) Sueven, op. city p. 148; Svue, 7, p. 607. (9) Tac., Ant. IV, 1, 23 Dio, 87, 19, 5; Stnavan, op, city p. 145,64 H.W. BIRD to chance or merely to the empereor’s favour, but to a very real political sagacity. Tiberius relicd upon him because he was reliable and loyal (), and his influence with the emperor would be enhanced by his remaining outside of the power groups gathered around the princes. It is also improbable that he belonged to the group centred upon M. Furius Camillus (cos. 8) and L. Arruntius (cos. 6) (*) since the latter was long detested by Sejanus (*) and L, Arruntius Furius Camillus Scribonianus was consul in 32, the year after Sejanus’ downfall. Sealey’s conclusions regarding Sejanus’ connection with the party of Maecenas (‘) appear unfounded, even more so if one accepts Sumner’s view (5) that Sejanus was not connected with the Cornelii Lentuli. It is likely that Sejanus’ concentration of the Praetorians on the Viminal heralded a new phase in his political influence (*). This action he took with the full approval of Tiberius, who saw it as a possible insurance for himself. Germanicus was by this time dead, but the popular demonstrations in his favour and against Piso had perhaps not been without effect. At any rate five eminent senators, including L. Arruntius, M. Vinicius and Asinius Gallus, refused to defend Piso. The year of the reorganization of the Praetorians ac- cording to Dio (*), was 20, and the same year Sejanus’ daughter, Junilla, was promised to Drusus, son of Claudius and great-nephew of the emperor. Even then Sejanus was suspected of designs above his station (8). Furthermore, Sejanus received the insignia of praetor in 20 and became the emperor’s ovpfovdoy xal tangéryy xpd: ndvra (8). (1) Cf Sve, 7, p. 405, (2) Vid. Wewvnas, The Family Connections of M. Livius Drusus Libs in H.S.C.P,, 72, 1968, cap. p. 272 f. (8) Tac, Am, VI, #8, 1. Arruntius may have been used as a counterweight to Se- Janus by Tiberius, though this is doubtful 5 cf. W. Aun, The Political Atmosphere of the Reign of Tiberius in T.AP.A., 72, 1941, p. 28. (A) Seauey, op. cit. (in n. 1, p. 62), p. 114. (8) Op. city in n. 1, p. 62. (6) Tac, Am, IV, 2, 1; Dio, 57, 19, 6; Sim, T:, p. 286. (7) Dro, 57, 19, 6. (8) Tac, Ann, IIT, 29, 4. (9) Dro, 57, 19, 7. Here one should perhaps point out that 20 is the year that heralds, for Dio at any rate, the great change in Tiberius, which takes place after Germanicus! death, Tacitus, for artistic reasons, reserved the change for 23, with the death of Drusus, ‘a more convenient milestone in the reign. In the first three books of the ‘Annals’ Ger-L, AELIUS SEIANUS AND HIS POLITICAL INFLUENCE 65 Two years later, so Tacitus informs us ("), Sejanus helped to contain a fire in the Theatre of Pompey and prevented it from sprea- ding. For this service Tiberius praised him, andthe senate, pro- bably at his instigation, voted Sejanus a statue to be placed in the theatre. The Praetorian Prefect was clearly a very important po- litical figure and his power was growing. One may pause to consider why, amid a period of tranquillity (?) and with a son and heir in his mid-thirties (*), Tiberius should have allowed so much power and influence to devolve upon Sejanus (*). The answer appears to be that Tiberius needed a man of Sejanus’ status and capabilities, Tacitus’ description of Sejanus (*) is strikingly similar, in certain important aspects, to that of Velleius. The Prefect was a man of strength, energy and efficiency, and was loyal to Tiberius. It is shown by Tacitus that Tiberius was outspoken to him alone, that the emperor disapproved of servility (*). ‘Tiberius, apparently, had nothing to fear from an equestrian, who could hardly usurp the throne or gather a factional clan-following without imperial support. It seems probable that Scjanus, with the emperor's connivance, sought the adherence of an existing faction only after the death of Drusus in 23, for the particular reason that otherwise the latter’s group would defect, at least in part, to the party of Agrippina, and thus cause further embarrassment to Tiberius. The emperor could effectively neutralize this party by supporting Sejanus and allowing his political influence to grow by means of patronage, and finally manicus is the secondary major figure; Sejanus plays the same role in the second half of the hexad. It is noticeable that much of Book II] is favourable to Tiberius, even in the final chapter, but the names of Gassius and Brutus in the last sentence are not gratui- tous insertions, Suetonius reserves his break into the vit section for the retreat to Capri (Ti., 41 ff). He does, of courte, go back in time to portray incidental vitia but the im- plication is that Tiberius left his virtues behind on the mainland, Sejanus’ role throughout is minimized, e.g. Tib., 97. He docs not appear until late on in the vitia and, although the Cave incident is briefly described (Tib., 39), Sejanus does not figure in it, This anec- dots appears before the account of Tiberius’ vices and it scems that Suetonius deliberately ‘omitted Sejanus who was, according to Tacitus, so deeply involved in Tiberis’ viia (1) dnn., TIT, 72, 3. For other accounts of the grant of statues to Sejanus vid. Ann. IV, 7, 25 Dio, 57, 21, 3; 58, 4, £5 Suer, Tid, 48. @) Tac, Ann, IV, 1, 1. @) Vid. Suswen, Germanicus and Drusus Caesar in Latomus, 26, 1967, p. 427 (@) Cf Dio, 57, 21, 4 () Ann, loc. cit, of. Vett., II, 127, 34, (©) Ann, TIT, 65, 3.