ANTONIA AND SEJANUS* The fall of Sejanus in A.D. 31 aroused considerable controversy in theancient sources and has also continued to do so in modern research. Indeed,questions of Sejanus' intentions and of the identification of his allies andenemies still remain of great interest. No small part of this speculationconcerns Antonia Minor, who is considered by an increasing number ofscholars to have provided Tiberius with the critical information which leddirectly to the fall of Sejanus.' In one recent article on.the family connectionsof Sejanus, it has been suggested that Antonia Minor, as a relative of Sejanusand a figure of no little influence, could have played a significant role notonly in his fall but also in his rise to pOwer.2 The relationship between thetwo, the subject of much conjecture but little analysis, deserves to beconsidered in detail. The following discussion will consist of three parts: I.) the alleged re-lationship between Antonia and Sejanus before 31, II.) the tradition thatstresses Antonia's importance in the fall of Sejanus, and III.) based on thecondusions of the first two sections, a reconstruction of the process bywhich Antonia became associated with the events of 31. It will here be argued that Antonia did not, in all probability, provideTiberius with the critical information about the intentions of Sejanus. Herimportance in the tradition is an invention of the Claudian and FlavianPeriods. I. Antonia and Sejanus before 31 There seems to be a four-fold connection between Antonia and Sejanusin the years before A. D. 31. First, Tacitus notes that Junius Blaesus, * The author wishes to express his thanks to the members of the Seminar fur Alte Geschichteder Universitat Freiburg before whom an early draft of this paper was read. Further drafts wereimproved by B. M. Levick of Oxford, Mortimer Chambers of Los Angeles and Walter Schmitt- henner of Freiburg. For the sources on Antonia's life see PIR2 A 885. Her important role is accepted in most ofthe studies which treat the fall of Sejanus including: F. B. Marsh, The Reign of Tiberius, Oxford,1931, 304; E. Koestermann, Der Sturz Seians, Hermes 83 (1955) 352f.; R. Syme, Tacitus, Oxford,1958, 752, and more recently by G.V. Sumner, The Family Connections of L. Aelius Sejanus,Phoenix 19 (1965) 144; E. Meise, Untersucbungen zur Geschichte der Juliscb-Claudiscben Dynastie,Munchen, 1969, 85; H.W. Bird, L. Aelius Sejanus and his Political Significance, Luton= 28(1969) 83 and R. Seager, Tiberius, London, 1972, 216f.2 Sumner, 140f. Antonia and Sejanus49 governor of Gallia Lugdunensis in 68/9 and grandson of Sejanus' uncle,could claim "Junior Antoniosque avos" (Hist. 111,38). Briefly, Sejanus' cousin,a Junius Blaesus (either PII?2I 736 or 739) was married to the granddaughterof Antonia's half sister.3 Second, Claudius, Antonia's son, was married toAelia Paetina, the daughter of Sejanus' adopted brother's (i.e. Seius Tubero's)cousin (Sex. Aelius Catus).4 Third, Livilla, Antonia's daughter, was in-volved in Sejanus' plan and was prepared to marry him.° And, fourth,Claudius' son Drusus was betrothed to the daughter of Sejanus (Tac. Ann.IV,7 ; Suet. Cl., 27). All this leads Sumner to suggest: "The possibility thatAntonia was in some sense allied with Sejanus will have to be born in mindin any attempt to understand the rise and fall of the Volsinian."6 These arguments are not, however, very persuasive. Generally speaking,the pattern of marriages in the Augustan Era had become so complex thatAntonia could be considered related in some degree to most of the impor-tant families of the era. More specifically, the connections in the first twocases are too distant to justify any definite conclusions about an alliance.Regarding Claudius' marriage with Aelia Paetina, there is no evidence inthe sources that Claudius married (before 19), divorced (between 20 and 40)or considered remarrying (in 48) Paetina because of her connection withSejanus.? As for Livilla, she was dearly acting on her own (Tac. Ann. IV,39): Antonia could hardly have approved of her daughter's behavior follow-ing the death of Drusus Tiberii f. in 23 which was so diametrically opposedto her own chastity following the death of Drusus the Elder (Val. Max. IV,3.3). The rumor that Antonia punished Livilla for her complicity withSejanus (Dio 58,11.7) is consistent with the theory that Livilla was acting onher own behalf. Finally, Tacitus says directly that the betrothal of DrususClaudii f. to Sejanus' daughter was the express wish of Tiberius. WhatAntonia may have thought cannot be determined, but Tacitus says thatSejanus was pleased with the thought that his grandchildren would carrythe blood of the Drusi (Tac. Ann. IV, 7). That is, there is no indication thatmarriage finalized a secret alliance between Sejanus and Antonia; whatSejanus hoped to gain was prestige. There is then no serious case for an alliance between Antonia and Sejanus.It might be added that, in contrast to his treatment of Livia Augusta andAgrippina the Elder, Tacitus gives no indication that Antonia was in any 3 See Sumner's Stemmata, 137 (discussed on page 143) and PIR2 I 737. 4 Sumner, 141. 5 On Livilla's relationship to Sejanus, see Meise, 49f.6 Sumner, 144. 7 For the evidence, see PIR2 A 305 and especially Suet. Cl. 26.2, where it is stated that Aeliawas divorced ex levibus offensis. The temptation to interpret these offensis as referring to a connec-tion with Sejanus should, I feel, be resisted: if Sejanus was the cause it is difficult to understandwhy Suetonius does not say so directly. Historia, Band X,XIV/1 (1975) Cl) Franz Steiner Verlag GmbH, Wiesbaden, BRD 4 Historia, Band XXIV/1 (1975) (C) Franz Steiner Verlag GmbH, Wiesbaden, BRD 50 JOHN NICOLS Antonia and Sejanus51 way actively involved in the dynastic and political problems of the earlyprindpate.8 II. Antonia and the fall of Sejanus A. The Sources An epigram of the poet Honestus of Corinth has been interpreted byCichorius as the earliest reference to Antonia's role in the fall of Sejanus.9This epigram, preserved as an inscription, is similar to thirteen other in-scribed epigrams of Honestus celebrating the Heliconian Muses of Thespiae. It reads: `H. botok codprepocat Oeok atixofaa Eeflactill Kairrapag',atcraa AgAau.ne (pear gapsvev Se aoTak Wincoviacnv ntvvrOg,pcov crt5yxopog., 7c' ye ',dog' x6apov lawaev Olov. 'Orgerrov which may be translated: Augusta, being proud of two godlike Caesars with their sceptres, shines forth a twin light of peace; Fit company for the wise Heliconian Muses, a choir mateof wise counsel, whose sagacity saved the whole world Honestus10 Cichorius has argued that the Augusta here is Antonia Minor, the twoCaesares are Gaius Caligula and Tiberius Gemellus. The saving of the worldrefers to Antonia's exposure of the plot of Sejanus. The validity of thisinterpretation will be discussed below. Suffice inhere to say that the identi-fication is highly improbable. Apart from this most doubtful reference, Flavius Josephus, writing atthe end of the first century, is the first and only writer to assign directly toAntonia the major role in the discovery of Sejanus' alleged "conspiracy"against Tiberius. In Book xviii of the AJ, Josephus relates how his hero,M. Julius Agrippa I, had been imprisoned by Tiberius and how the formerappealed to Antonia, an old friend of his mother, to use her influence inorder to secure his release. Josephus here explains why Antonia was in- fluential: Now Antonia was highly esteemed by Tiberius both because, as the wifeof his brother Drusus, she was related to him, and because she was a 8 Tacitus' treatment of Antonia is generally positive, see for example Ann. III, 3 and Marsh, 304.C. Cichorius, ROmische Studien, Leipzig and Berlin, 1922, 362. Honestus most likely lived under Augustus and Tiberius, see below page 51. i° Text from A. S.F. Gow and D. L. Page, The Greek Anthology; The Garland of Philip, Vol. I, Cambridge, 1968, 276. The translation is basically that of this writer. virtuous and chaste woman. For despite her youth she remained steadfastin her widowhood and refused to marry again although the emperorurged her to do so. She thus kept her life free from reproach. She on her,own had done a very great service to Tiberius. For a great conspiracy J.Oot2iy0 had been formed against him by his friend Sejanus, who atthat time held very great power because he was prefect of the praetoriancohorts. Most of the senators and freedmen joined him, the army wasbribed, and so the conspiracy made great progress. Indeed, Sejanus wouldhave succeeded had not Antonia shown greater craft (aoq)coTepa) in herbold move than Sejanus did in his villainy. For when she was informedof the plot against Tiberius, she wrote him a full and accurate accountof it and, entrusting the letter to Pallas, the most trustworthy of herslaves, sent it to Tiberius at Capri. Tiberius, being informed, put Sejanusand his fellow conspirators to death. As for Antonia, whom he had pre-viously held in high regard, he now valued her even more and put fullconfidence in her. (AJ xviii, 180f.) 11 It should be recognized that Josephus' report makes two allegations: 1.)Antonia was the critical informer, and 2.) Sejanus was plotting against Tibe-rius. He is the only source for both statements. The next reference to Antonia's role in the fall of Sejanus appears in thewritings of Cassius Dio, two centuries after the event. Concerning the ex-cellent memory of Antonia's freedwoman Caenis (the mistress of Vespasian),Dio writes : Her (Caenis') mistress Antonia, the mother of Claudius, had once employedher as a secretary in writing a secret letter to Tiberius about Sejanus(nepi aov Eeravoi5) and had immediately ordered the message to be erased,in order that no trace of it might be left. Thereupon she replied: "It isuseless, mistress, for you to give this command; for not only all this butalso whatever else you dictate to me I always carry in my mind and itcan never be erased." (66,14)12 Though other sources speak of Sejanus' fall (e.g. Philo leg. 6; Tac. Ann.V1,3; Suet. Tib. 65), there is no further mention of Antonia. B. Analysis of the sources Honestus of Corinth is an obscure figure, but he probably lived duringthe early first century – during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius to bemore exact.13 The evidence for this date is, however, not very secure. Littlemay be derived from epigraphical arguments as the surviving epigrams from " Loeb translation by L.H. Feldman.12 Loeb translation by E Cary. " See Gow and Page, Vol. II, 301; W. Peek, Die Musen von Thespiae, Geras A. Keramopoullou, Athens, 1953, 609f. and Louis Robert, Bull. Ep. 1955, No. 119, who discusses the earlier theoriesthoroughly. 52JOHN NICOLSAntonia and Sejanus53 Thespiae were engraved with Boeotian letters which have not generally'been well studied. One may conclude only that the inscriptions in questionwere cut before A. D. 200.14 The alternative method of dating Honestus,and a difficult one given the imprecise language used, has been to identifythe Augusta and Caesares of the above cited epigram. Up to the presenttime, four imperial ladies have been suggested: Julia Augusti f. (with Gaiusand Lucius as the Caesares), Livia (with Augustus and Tiberius or withTiberius and the Elder Drusus), Antonia (with Gaius Caligula and Tib.Gemellus) and Julia Domna (with Geta and Caracalla).15 As can be seen from the variety of suggestions this epigram does notlend itself to easy interpretation. There are, however, sufficient argumentsagainst Cichorius' identification of the Augusta as Antonia. First, thoughAntonia was given the title Augusta following the accession of Gaius inMarch 37, she rejected the use of it during her lifetime (She died 1 May 3716)and it was not commonly used before the reign of Claudius (Suet. Gains15.3; Cl. 11.2). Second, it is hard to imagine that any poet would havethought to place Tiberius Gemellus on the same level as Caligula at anytime after March 37. And, in fact, there is no official propaganda com-menting on the equal status of the two either before or after that date. Moreover, there are two other more satisfactory candidates for the title,Julia Augusti f. and Livia. Louis Robert has summed up persuasively thearguments for assigning the title to Julia.17 Indeed, the identification ofJulia and her sons C. and L. Caesar fits the inscription very well except forone problem: Julia never bore that title. It is true, however, that at least oneother inscription refers to her unofficially as: 'I[ov]Alav 1Mav afictanti[v],18 Nevertheless, suspicion remains as Livia, an official Augusta, fits the de-scription even better. It is true that the previous identifications connecting Livia with Augustusand Tiberius19 or with Tiberius and Drusus the Elder" are less satisfactory 14 Peek, 612f. Robert is of the opinion, however, that there are analogies between this in-scription and another one from Thespiae dated to between 17 and 12 B.C. 15 See Robert for a bibliography and discussion. The suggestion of Julia Domna may be im-mediately ruled out due to the similarity of this epigram to the early first century Garland of Philip, Gow and Page, Vol. II, 301. " And not in May, 38, as believed by Cichorius, 363. It is this error, giving Antonia a yearinstead of six weeks of life under Gaius, which, in this writers opinion, substantially reduces theeffectiveness of Cichorius argument. On the date of her death, see the Fasti Ost. for the year 37in Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, Oxford, 1963 Ej).11 Robert, id. 19 IGRR iii, 940, an inscription from the temple of Venus at Paphos. 19 Gow and Page, 301.99 P. Jamot, Fouilles de Thespies, BCH 26 (1902) 300. than the identification of Julia with Gaius and Lucius. To the first pair itmay be objected that it is highly improbable that Livia, as Augusta onlyafter A. D. 14 (Tac. Ann. 1,8), would be mentioned as such on the first lineand the deified Augustus, paralleled with Tiberius, only as Caesar on linetwo. The second identification suffers from a similar complication: Drususwas long dead when Livia received the title.21 The most satisfactory identification, and one not previously suggested,is Livia as the Augusta and her grandsons Germanicus and Drusus JuliusTib. f. as the Caesars. First, Livia was Augusta during the years that theywere Caesars (A.D. 14-19). Second, they both held imperium in theseyears (Tac. Ann. 1,14 and 24), if, indeed, that is the meaning of owiprrpotcrt.They both had been voted ovations for diplomatic successes (Tac. Ann. II,64) which is perhaps the meaning of elinjvtig' Tan. They were often paired(Tac. Ann. 11,43; IV,4) and frequently served as honorary duumviri,22 andformed as well a consistent pair on the inscriptions and coins of the period."Finally, there seems to have existed a common cult of Livia as Julia Augustawith Germanicus and Drusus in Spain." Livia's saving the world, then,may well refer to her role in Augustus' final settlement of the successionproblem in A. D. 4, at which time the Julian and Claudian families were united.25 In general, and recognizing that certainty on this question is impossible,it is highly unlikely that the Augusta in this epigram is Antonia Minor.Probably it is Livia, but Julia cannot be ruled out. One should in any casereject Cichorius' interpretation that Honestus was celebrating Antonia'srole in the fall of Sejanus.26 The chapters from Josephus, though more specific, are no more satis-factory, for, as will be shown, both Josephus' sources and his own inclina-tions would have led him to exaggerate Antonia's role. The sources of Josephus' AJ, especially for Roman history, have long 21 Drusus, it may be objected, was and remained a Claudius throughout his life. A reference tohim as a "Caesar" is highly improbable. 22 E.g., in Spain. See A. Vives y Escudero, La Moneda Hispanica iv, Madrid, 1936, for manyreferences. 23 For the inscriptions, IGRR iii, 680, and iv, 1549: EJ 92, 94a and b; for the coins, Vives,op. cit. and Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum, for Phrygia, 246; Lydia, 251; Caria,167 and Central Greece, 65. 24 A. Garcia y Bellido, Los Retratos de Livia, Drusus Minor y Germanicus de Medina Sidonia,Mélanges Piganiol, Paris, 1966, 481. 25 On this subject, see B.M. Levick, Drusus Caesar and the Adoptions of A.D. 4, Latomus 25(1966) 227. 26 Unfortunately, and despite the criticisms of Peek and Robert, Cichorius authority hasremained unchallenged in English speaking research, see, for example, Seager, 216 and G. W.Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World, Oxford, 1965, 141 n. 2. 54JonN MansAntonia and Sejanus55 been the subject of speculation.21 Josephus, as is unfortunately his habit,does not give any indication of his sources. Mommsen has argued on thebasis of one anecdote (AJ xix, 91/2) that Cluvius Rufus was the source ofall portions of the AJ and BJ dealing with Roman history.28 This theoryhas, until recently, won general acceptance.29 Feldman, however, has pre-sented a good case for supplemental oral sources dealing especially with theproblems of AJ xix. Among the probable sources is the Jewish king Agrip-pa I (PIR2 I 131), whose son, Agrippa II (PIR2 I 132), as a friend andpatron of Josephus, provided him with a considerable body of historicalmaterial (Vita 366).3° That the section here under discussion could well stem from the familytradition of the Agrippae is substantiated by the fact that Book xviii of theAJ centers around the figure of Agrippa I and his romanticized adventuresat the courts of Tiberius and Gaius. Throughout Book xviii Antonia, as thefriend of Agrippa's mother Berenice (AJ xviii, 143, 156, 165), is presented asAgrippa's saving angel (id. and 179f., 183f., 202f., 236f.). These statementslead Feldman to conclude that Josephus gave special notice to Antonia andher family as part of a ". . general exaltation of Agrippa, (and) his friendAntonia . ."31 And, indeed, the story of Antonia and Sejanus appearsonly within the context of Agrippa's adventures. If then Agrippa I is the probable source of these chapters, how reliableis he as a witness? As he was in Palestine from A.D. 23 until about 36,32 hecould not have passed on an eye witness account of what had happened.His version of the story was formed, most probably, from what he learnedfrom his Roman acquaintances after his return to Rome. Some confirmation for this suggestion may be found in the prominenceof Palln s (PIR2 A 858) in the story. First, the fact that Pallas, then an un-known slave of Antonia, is mentioned at all, points to a source dating to thereign of Claudius. Second, Pallas' brother Antonius Felix (PIR2 A 828) waslater the procurator of Judaea and married Drusilla (PIR2 D 195), thedaughter of Agrippa I and the sister of Agrippa II. Though it is doubtful 27 Most recently by L. H. Feldman, The Sources of Josephus Antiquities, Book 19, Latomus 21(1962) 321; cf. D. Timpe, Rämische Geschichte bei Flavius Josephus, Historia 9 (1960) 474.Feldman, 320, n. 3, gives a complete bibliography of the question. 28 Th. Mommsen, Cornelius Tacitus and Cluvius Rufus, Gesammelte S cbriften vii, Berlin, 1909,248.28 See Feldman, 320, n. 3, for the references. An exception not noted by Feldman is H. Block,Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus, Leipzig, 1879, 154, where he argues that everything about Agrippa I comes from his son Agrippa II. 38 Feldman, 332. Timpe is of less value for this question as his analysis is restricted to theparticular problems of AJ xix. He does, however, admit the existence of a Jewish source, 501/2. 31 L. H. Feldman, Josephus IX (Loeb) 129, n. D. 32 Josephus AJ xviii, 147 and 161. For a detailed chronology see A. H.M. Jones, The Herodesof Judaea, Oxford, 1938,185f. that he would have brought this story into the family tradition of theAgrippae he may have been responsible for the detail concerning Pallas.Whatever the case, this tradition would seem to have become establishedduring the reign of Claudius and definitely before Pallas' fall from powerin the early years of Nero's reign (Tac. Ann. XIII, 14 and XIV, 65). If the arguments about the Claudian context of Josephus' account ofSejanus' fall have any validity, one other inconsistency may be explained.Josephus is the only source who states that the "conspiracy" was directedagainst Tiberius himself. Both Suetonius (Tib. 61) and Tacitus (Ann. VI,3.4)make it quite clear that the "conspiracy" centered around the figure ofGaius. The reason for this transfer becomes clear when one considers that,at the time the Agrippan version of the story was formed (i.e. soon after theevents of January 41),33 it may have been considered impolitic to refer tothe new emperor's mother saving the tyrant Gaius. Using this version, andunderstandably inclined to favor his friend and patron Agrippa II, it doesnot seem likely that Josephus would have strained his critical faculties todetermine the truth of what is, after all, only an ancillary anecdote. In summary, Josephus adopted a story that was compatible with thewishes of his patron Agrippa II. The ultimate source of his version wouldseem to have been Agrippa I, but as he was not in Rome at the time ofSejanus' fall he could not have passed on a first-hand account of the event.This version of the fall of Sejanus, despite its appearing within the contextof Agrippa's highly romantic and exaggerated adventures at the court ofTiberius and Gaius, is datable, because of its emphasis on Pallas, to thereign of Claudius. Consistent with the semi-official history of the ClaudianEra and Agrippa's devotion to Antonia, the version that became establishedin the family tradition of the Agrippae de-emphasized the threat to Gaiusand exaggerated the importance of Antonia and Pallas. There is then every reason why Josephus' sources and his own inclina-tions would have led him to stress the importance of Antonia in the eventsof 31. In this sense, the story is remarkably similar to another well knowncase of exaggeration by Josephus: his account of Agrippa's role in theaccession of Claudius as reported in AJ xix, 236E34 Dio's account of Antonia's role in the fall of Sejanus is curious becauseit occurs not in the full account of the discovery and suppression of the"conspiracy" in Book 58, but rather in the Flavian Book 66. It is still morecurious because, although Antonia is mentioned in Book 58, it is only inrelation to the punishment of her daughter Livilla for "complicity" (58,11.7). The central figure of this passage is not Antonia Minor but her freed-woman Caenis. 33 On the assassination of Gaius see J. P. V. D. Balsdon, The Emperor Gaius, Oxford, 1934, 101 f. 34 Cf. BJ ii, 206. See also V. Scramuzza, The Emperor Claudius, London, 1940, 58-9. 56JOHN NICOLSAntonia and Sejanus57 The presence of Caenis points to the clear connection between Vespasianand Antonia. Vespasian's mistress in his youth and again later as, he wasemperor was this Caenis, the trusted secretary of Antonia (Suet. Vesp. 3;Dio 66,14).35 He was sponsored in his career by L. Vitellius (Tac. Hist. iii,66), the powerful minister and friend of Claudius, who claimed a longfriendship with Antonia (Tac. Ann. xi, 3). Another supporter of Vespasianwas Narcissus (Suet. Vesp. 4), the freedman of Claudius, who may havebegun his career in the joint household of Claudius and Antonia." Giventhis strong Flavian background, it may be worthwhile to investigate Dio'ssources for this story.37 An analysis of the lost contemporary histories of the reign of Tiberiusis hopeless." The works of Servilius Nonianus, Aufidius Bassus and theautobiographies of Tiberius and Agrippina the Younger all remain shadowydocuments. Nevertheless, it is hard to see how any one of them would havedevoted much space to the tale of the prodigious memory of the still un-known and young freedwoman of Antonia. Seneca the Elder might be amore likely source; his history seems to have come down to about 37 andhis own excellent memory may have given him an interest in similar ca-pacities in others." Nevertheless, the definite Flavian context in which thisstory is told seems to speak against the proposition that Dio found thestory in a Julio-Claudian source. If a Flavian source for this tale seems more likely, its identification is nomore certain. Pliny the Elder shows a great interest in such tales but hishistory does not seem to have covered either the reign of Tiberius or verymuch of Vespasian's." Licinius Mucianus composed a book on naturalwonders in which the mnemonic achievements of Caenis would not havebeen out of place. Nevertheless, too little is known about this work toventure any suggestions." Plutarch, on the other hand, would seem a more likely source. He hadtraveled extensively in Italy during the Flavian Era and was no doubtfamiliar with the gossip concerning the emperors and their immediate 38 See also CIL vi, 12037, DIS. MANIWANTONIAE.AVG/L.CAENIDIS/OPTVMAE.PATRON. 38 It is often forgotten that, after the adoption of Germanicus by Tiberius, Claudius becamepaterfamilias of the Claudii Nerones, including Antonia under his authority. 37 F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio, Oxford, 1964, 34, says "Quellenforschung makes up the vastmajority of literature on Dio, but it has hardly led to satisfactory results." For one such attempt,see G. Townend, Traces in Dio Cassius of Cluvius, Aufidius and Pliny, Hermes 89 (1961) 227. 38 Syme, 274-278.38 Seneca, de vita patris, quoted and discussed by Syme, 277. 48 The terminal dates of ab fine Aufidii Bassi are still unclear. See Syme, 179-80 and Townend,232-3. 41 For the fragments, see H. Peter HRR ii, Stuttgart, 1967, 101 f. (reprint of 1906 edition).See also Kappelmacher, RE xiii, 441, `Licinius 116a. families." Such a story might well have been recorded in one of his lostessays." Tacitus is also a possible source. It would not be unusual for himto have given a summary of Caenis' career on mentioning her death in alost portion of the Historiae. The details of the necrology, however, andespecially Caenis' reply to Antonia, are not compatible with the usualTacitean solemnity and brevity on such occasions." In the end certainty isimpossible and further speculation meaningless. We may conclude that such a story would never have been recorded ifCaenis had not later become such an important figure at Vespasian's court.Most likely this tale of one of the few truly colorful characters of theFlavian Era developed in that Era, being recorded perhaps by Plutarch. In general, then, there is no reliable evidence that Antonia played a sig-nificant role in the fall of Sejanus. III. A Reconstruction On the basis of the conclusions reached above, it might be worthwhileto consider how the tradition concerning Antonia and Sejanus developed. The official version of Sejanus' fall is given by Suetonius in his VitaTiberii. There Suetonius, quoting from Tiberius' autobiography, states thatTiberius claimed to have destroyed Sejanus ". quod comperisset furere ad-versus liberos Germanici filii sui" (61). This version is supported by Tacituswho mentions that Sextius Paconianus was the ". delectus ab Seiano cuiusope dolus Gaio Caesari pararetur" (Ann. VI, 3). Whether Tiberius mentionedAntonia as the source (or one of the sources) which informed him of Sejanus'plans cannot be determined. But, on the basis of Suetonius' statement, itwould seem unlikely that Tiberius mentioned anyone in particular. In line with this official version it is probable that the Acta Senatus madesome mention of Antonia in connection with Sejanus' fall. Following thecondemnation and death of Sejanus the Senate would probably have offi-cially thanked Tiberius and Antonia for saving Gaius and his siblings. Asimilar thanksgiving had been voted eleven years before when, followingCn. Piso's condemnation, Tiberius, Livia, Antonia, Agrippina, Drusus Tib.f. and Claudius were thanked ". . . ob vindictam Germanici" (Tac. Ann. III, 18).In 31, Livia and Drusus were dead and Agrippina was in prison. Claudius,who had been consistently denied public honors by Tiberius (Suet. Cl. 5)and who had only been added to the Resolution of 20 as an afterthought, 42 C. P. Jones, Plutarch and Rome, Oxford, 1971, 20f. 43 The traditional list of Plutarchs writings, "the catalogue of Lamprias" is given in full byZiegler, RE xxi, 697. About one-third of the titles are lost, including a "Life of Tiberius,"catalogue number 27. 44 A good example of the Tacitean necrology is that for Livia, Ann. V, 1. 58JOHN NICOLS, Antonia and Sejanus may not even have been included in this one. It is a reasonable assumptionthat official thanks would have been voted to Antonia, the guardian ofGaius and his sisters in 31 (Suet. Gains 10), whether or not she had playedany role in the exposure of the "plot." The accession of Gaius brought Antonia into prominence. She was givenall the honors voted previously to Livia including the title of Augusta(Suet. Gaius 15.2). It should be noted that, though Suetonius gives no par-ticular reason for these honors, people might have begun to associate herwith the saving of Gains. Most likely, however, Antonia was honored aspart of the general celebration of Gaius' family.45 Interest in Antonia no doubt increased under Claudius, who, to thehonors voted for his mother, issued also a series of coins." The story would,of course, have varied: a reference to Antonia saving Gaius would not havebeen acceptable in the days following his assassination. At this point thetradition divided. Agrippa I returned to Judaea with one variation closelylinked to his own adventures and flattering to Claudius, to his motherAntonia, and to his powerful freedman Pallas. This version became partof the family tradition of the Agrippae and eventually passed into the AJof Josephus. The other variation of the tradition is more difficult to tracebut it certainly solidified in the Flavian Era, no doubt promoted by Antonia'sformer secretary and Vespasian's mistress, Caenis. This tradition, stressingCaenis instead of Pallas, passed eventually into Dio's history. Conclusions There is no evidence to support the theory that Antonia and Sejanus werein any way allied before the events of 31. The sources which stress Antonia's importance in the fall of Sejanus aremost probably based on inventions of the Claudian and Flavian periods. In reference to the more general question of Sejanus' conspiracy it hashere been suggested that Josephus' allegation that Sejanus was plottingagainst Tiberius reflects the semi-official history of the Claudian principate,which, in the aftermath of Gaius' assassination, de-emphasized the threat toGaius in 31. This tradition, developing at the time that it did, preferred tosee Sejanus' conspiracy directed against Tiberius rather than against thedead tyrant Gaius. Freiburg i. Br.John Nicols 45 The phenomenon is most plainly seen on Gaius' bronze coinage, see BMCRE I, 151 f.44 BMCRE I Claudius, Nrs. 109 (aureus) and 166 (dupondius).